83 Inf5

INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION
E
IMO
MARITIME SAFETY COMMITTEE

83rd session
Agenda item 5
MSC 83/INF.5
3 July 2007
ENGLISH ONLY
GOAL-BASED NEW SHIP CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS

Information submitted by IACS to the Pilot Project on Goal-Based Standards for New Ship
Construction for Bulk Carriers and Oil Tankers
Submitted by IACS
SUMMARY
Executive summary:
This document forwards the IACS documents submitted to the Pilot

Project of the Goal-Based Standards for New Ship Construction for
Bulk Carriers and Oil Tankers.
Action to be taken:
Paragraph 2
Related document:
MSC 82/24, paragraph 5.29
Introduction
1
The following documents were submitted by IACS to the Pilot Panel in order to assist
with the Pilot Panels terms of reference. These documents were also copied to the
Correspondence Group through the Pilot Panel meeting reports.
Annex 1
Annex 2
Annex 3
Annex 4
Annex 5
Annex 6
Annex 7
IACS Documentation Package for the IMO GBS Pilot Project, dated 16 February 2007.
IACS Technical Presentation to the IMO GBS Pilot Project, dated 12 March 2007.
IMO Pilot Panel Questions to IACS for March 12 meeting.
Questions/comments to IACS during presentation on March 12.
(Presentation) Goal-Based New Ship Construction Standards, Tier II.2
Net Scantlings, dated 16 February 2007.
IACS Study Steel Weight Impact from Net Scantling Definition, dated 24 April 2007.
IACS Study Impact of Applying the CSR Corrosion Addition on the Hull Girder
Section Modulus, dated 3 June 2007.
Action requested of the Committee

2
The Committee is invited to note the information contained in the documents listed
above.
***
For reasons of economy, this document is printed in a limited number. Delegates are
kindly asked to bring their copies to meetings and not to request additional copies.
I:\MSC\83\INF-5.DOC
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 1
IACS
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF CLASSIFICATION SOCIETIES
36 Broadway
London, SW1H 0BH, U.K.
Tel: +44 (0)20 7976 0660
Email: permsec@iacs.org.uk
IACS Documentation Package

for the
IMO GBS Pilot Project
16 February 2007
Submitted to:
INTERNATIONAL MARITIME SAFETY ORGANIZATION
Maritime Safety Committee
IMO Pilot Project
(MSC 82/24, Paragraph 5.29 and Annex 15)
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 1
PAGE 2
IACS - International Association of Classification Societies

All rights reserved. Except as permitted under current legislation no part of this work may be
photocopied, stored in a retrieval system, published, performed in public, adapted, broadcast,
transmitted, recorded or reproduced in any form or by any means, without prior permission
of the copyright owner. Where IACS has granted written permission for any part of this
publication to be quoted such quotation must include acknowledgment to IACS.
Enquiries should be addressed to
The Permanent Secretary,
International Association of Classification Societies,
36 Broadway, London, SW1H 0BH
Telephone: +44-(0)207 976 0660
Fax:
+44-(0)207-808 11007
E-mail:
permsec@iacs.org.uk
TERMS AND CONDITIONS

The International Association of Classification Societies (IACS), its Member Societies and
their officers, members, employees and agents (on behalf of whom this notice is issued) shall
be under no liability or responsibility in negligence or otherwise to any person in respect of
any information or advice expressly or impliedly given in this document, or in respect of any
inaccuracy herein or omission herefrom or in respect of any act or omission which has caused
or contributed to this document being issued with the information or advice it contains (if
any).Without derogating from the generality of the foregoing, neither IACS nor its Member
Societies and their officers, members, employees or agents shall be liable in negligence or
otherwise howsoever for any indirect or consequential loss to any person caused by or arising
from any information, advice, inaccuracy or omission being given or contained herein or any
act or omission causing or contributing to any such information, advice, inaccuracy or
omission being given or contained herein.
Produced in February 2007 for the International Association of Classification Societies.
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 1
PAGE 3
Contents:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
General.............................................................................................................................................1
Objective ..........................................................................................................................................1
Structure of this report...................................................................................................................1
Cross reference Table.....................................................................................................................3
Commentary ...................................................................................................................................9
Tier II Functional Requirements .......................................................................................................9
DESIGN..............................................................................................................................................11
II.1
Design life .............................................................................................................................11
II.2
Environmental conditions ..................................................................................................11
II.3
Structural Strength ..............................................................................................................14
II.4
Fatigue life ............................................................................................................................30
II.5
Residual strength .................................................................................................................31
II.6
Protection against corrosion...............................................................................................32
II.6.1
Coating life .......................................................................................................................32
II.6.2
Corrosion addition ..........................................................................................................33
II.7
Structural redundancy ........................................................................................................35
II.8
Watertight and weathertight integrity .............................................................................36
II.9
Human element considerations.........................................................................................37
II.10
Design transparency .......................................................................................................38
CONSTRUCTION.............................................................................................................................41
II.11
Construction quality procedures ..................................................................................41
II.12
Survey ...............................................................................................................................42
IN-SERVICE CONSIDERATIONS .................................................................................................43
II.13
Survey and Maintenance................................................................................................43
II.14
Structural accessibility ....................................................................................................43
RECYCLING CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................................44
II.15
Recycling...........................................................................................................................44
6. Conclusions ...................................................................................................................................44
Appendices
A.
IMO Goal-based New Ship Construction Standards
B.
IACS Common Structural for Double Hull Oil Tankers
C.
Background Documents for the IACS Common Structural for Double Hull Oil Tankers
IMO Pilot Project

16 February 2007
Page i
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 1
PAGE 4
This page intentionally left blank
IMO Pilot Project

16 February 2007
Page ii
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 1
PAGE 5
1.
General
At the 81st session of the IMO Maritime Safety Committee held in May 2006, IACS
agreed to use the recently developed common structural rules as basis for a pilot to
conduct a trial application of the IMO Goal-based New Ship Construction Standards (GBS).
While IACS has published common rules for both tankers and bulk carriers, in order to
limit the scope for the pilot, only the common rules for tankers will be used. Therefore,
the IACS 2006 Common Structural Rules for Double Hull Oil Tankers(referred to as CSR
or Rules in this report), which entered into force on 1 April 2006 have been used.
2.
Objective
2.1 Objective of the Pilot Project
The objective of the pilot project is to conduct a trial application of Tier III of the GBS for
oil tankers and bulk carriers with the intention of validating the Tier III verification
framework, identifying shortcomings and making proposals for improvement. Note,
the pilot project will test the IMO GBS Tier III Verification Framework and not actually
carry out the verification of the IACS CSR at this time.
2.2 Objective of the submission from IACS
The objective of the submission from IACS is to provide to the pilot panel a working
example of how IACS in the future may provide the background documentation
illustrating how classification rules meet the GBS. The intention has been to provide this
to the pilot panel in order for them to start their work with an example at hand, and
thereby contribute to making the work more concrete.
3.
Structure of this report

To assist the pilot panel members, a self assessment has been prepared by the IACS
team summarising the extent to which IACS CSR meet each of the GBS Tier II functional
requirements. This self assessment can be found in the table on the next page.
The self assessment indicates where the GBS are covered and where the GBS are not
fully covered in the CSR. Possible reasons why the CSR do not fully cover the GBS
include;
the subject area is not normally covered in class newbuilding construction rules,
the subject area is implicitly covered and not explicitly covered,
the subject area is covered by other rules or regulations,
the subject area is only partially covered,
etc.
Wherever an item is indicated as not being fully covered in the CSR an accompanying
comment is given.
A list of references to CSR for each of the functional requirements is provided in section
4.
Further commentary for each of the GBS functional requirements is included in Section 5
of this document.
IMO Pilot Project

16 February 2007
Page 1
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 1
PAGE 6
Self Assessment Summary Table
Item
Fully
covered in
CSR
Partially
covered in
CSR
Not covered
in CSR
Comment
DESIGN
II.1
Design life
II.2
Environmental
conditions
II.3
Structural strength
II.4
Fatigue life
II.5
Residual strength
II.6
Protection against
corrosion
Implicitly addressed in rules.
II.6.1 Coating life

II.6.2 Corrosion addition
II.7
Structural redundancy
II.8
Watertight and
weathertight integrity
II.9
Human element
considerations
II.10 Design transparency
Partially covered. May be

addressed in future SOLAS
Reg.
Also addressed by other rules
or conventions.
CONSTRUCTION
II.11 Construction quality

procedures
II.12 Survey
IN-SERVICE CONSIDERATIONS
II.13 Survey and

Maintenance
II.14 Structural accessibility
Addressed with respect to

design and construction
requirements to allow adequate
survey of the structure.
Addressed in SOLAS Reg II-1/3
on PMA.
RECYCLING CONSIDERATIONS
II.15 Recycling
IMO Pilot Project

Will be addressed in future IMO

Reg. on Recycling of Ships.
16 February 2007
Page 2
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 1
PAGE 7
4.
Cross reference Table

The following table includes a quick cross reference to the CSR for each of the GBS Tier
II functional requirements.
Cross Reference Table
TIER II (FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS)
CSR for Tanker
<from MSC 82/WP.5, 6 Dec 2006>
Associated Rule Reference
DESIGN
II.1 Design life
The specified design life is not to be less than 25 years.
II.2 Environmental conditions

Ships should be designed in accordance with North
Atlantic environmental conditions and relevant longterm sea state scatter diagrams.
II.3 Structural strength

Ships should be designed with suitable safety margins:
.1
to withstand, at net scantlings**, in the

intact condition, the environmental
conditions anticipated for the ships
design life and the loading conditions
appropriate for them, which should
include full homogeneous and alternate
loads, partial loads, multi-port and ballast
voyage, and ballast management
condition loads and occasional
overruns/overloads during
loading/unloading operations, as
applicable to the class designation; and
.2
appropriate for all design parameters

whose calculation involves a degree of
uncertainty, including loads, structural
modelling, fatigue, corrosion, material
imperfections, construction workmanship
errors, buckling and residual strength.
The structural strength should be assessed against

excessive deflection and failure modes, including but
not limited to buckling, yielding and fatigue. Ultimate
strength calculations should include ultimate hull girder
capacity and ultimate strength of plates and stiffeners.
The ships structural members should be of a design
that is compatible with the purpose of the space and
ensures a degree of structural continuity. The structural
members of ships should be designed to facilitate
load/discharge for all contemplated cargoes to avoid
IMO Pilot Project
2/3.1.3 Design life

9/3.2.3.1 Design fatigue life
B/2.4.7.2 Design life
C/1.4.1.3 Fatigue life
C/1.4.1.4 Fatigue life
2/3.1.7.1 - External environment
2/4.2.6.2(d) Environmental loads
9/3.2.2.1 Fatigue loads
Net scantlings:
2/4.3.4
4/2.4
6/3
Intact structure:
2/4.3.5
Environmental loads:
2/3.1.7
2/4.2
7/
Loading conditions:
2/3.1.5
2/3.1.6
2/3.1.8
Tab 2.4.1
2/4.2.5
2/5.4.1.1 thru 5
2/5.4.2
7/2.1, 7/2.2, 8/1.1.2, 8/Tab 8.2.7
thru 9
B/Tab B.2.3 and 4
Accidental loads:
2/4.2.7
Tab 2.4.1
7/2.2.3.2
7/5
Yield acceptance criteria:
2/4.5
2/5.4.1.5 thru 10
2/Tab2.5.1 thru 3
2/5.4.5 and 6
8/Tab 8.1.3 (BM)
8/Tab 8.1.4 (shear)
8/Tab 8.2.4 and 5 (local)
16 February 2007
Page 3
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 1
PAGE 8
CSR for Tanker
damage by loading/discharging equipment which may

compromise the safety of the structure.
8/Tab 8.2.10 (PSM)

9/2.2.5 (FEM)
9/Tab 9.2.1 (FEM)
Deflection criteria:
2/5.3.1.1(b)
2/5.4.5.1
3/5.3.3.4
8/2.6.1.7 plus individual reqts.
10/2
Buckling criteria:
2/4.5
2/Tab 2.5.2 and 3
8/1.2.1.4
8/1.4
8/2.6.1.6
9/2.2.5.3
10/
D/
Fatigue criteria:
2/4.3.3
Tab 2.5.1
2/5.4.3
2/5.6.5
8/1.5
9/3
B/4
C/
Hull girder ULS:
2/5.6.3
9/1
A/
Compatibility:
2/3.1.7
2/3.1.8
Continuity:
4/3.2 thru 4
8/1.6
8/1.6.5 and 6
8/2.1.4.7
8/2.3.1.3
8/3.1.3
8/4.1.3
8/5.1.3
Loading / Unloading
2/4.2.1
2/Tab 2.5.1
8/1.1.2.2(b)
** The net scantlings should provide the structural

strength required to sustain the design loads, assuming
the structure in intact condition and excluding any
addition for corrosion.
II.4 Fatigue life
9/3.2.3.1
C/
The design fatigue life should not be less than the

ships design life and should be based on the
environmental conditions in II.2.
II.5 Residual strength

Ships should be designed to have sufficient strength to
IMO Pilot Project
General principle:
2/4.1.2.2(a) and (d)
Hull girder ULS:
16 February 2007
Page 4
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 1
PAGE 9
CSR for Tanker
withstand the wave and internal loads in specified

damaged conditions such as collision, grounding or
flooding. Residual strength calculations should take
into account the ultimate reserve capacity of the hull
girder, including permanent deformation and postbuckling behaviour. Actual foreseeable scenarios
should be investigated in this regard as far as is
reasonably practicable.
A/ which contains post-buckling

investigations.
II.6 Protection against corrosion
(See details below in II.6.1 and 2)
Measures are to be applied to ensure that net

scantlings required to meet structural strength
provisions are maintained throughout the specified
design life. Measures include, but are not limited to,
coatings, corrosion additions, cathodic protection,
impressed current systems, etc.
II.6.1 Coating life

Coatings should be applied and maintained in
accordance with manufacturers specifications
concerning surface preparation, coating selection,
application and maintenance. Where coating is
required to be applied, the design coating life is to be
specified. The actual coating life may be longer or
shorter than the design coating life, depending on the
actual conditions and maintenance of the ship.
Coatings should be selected as a function of the
intended use of the compartment, materials and
application of other corrosion prevention systems, e.g.
cathodic protection or other alternatives.
6/2
Coatings:
6/2.1.1
11/5.1.8 and 9
Corrosion:
6/3
Cathotic protection:
6/2.1.2
Measurements in service:
12/
6/3
The corrosion addition should be added to the net

scantling and should be adequate for the specified
design life. The corrosion addition should be
determined on the basis of exposure to corrosive
agents such as water, cargo or corrosive atmosphere,
or mechanical wear, and whether the structure is
protected by corrosion prevention systems, e.g.
coating, cathodic protection or by alternative means.
The design corrosion rates (mm/year) should be
evaluated in accordance with statistical information
established from service experience and/or accelerated
model tests. The actual corrosion rate may be greater
or smaller than the design corrosion rate, depending on
the actual conditions and maintenance of the ship.
II.7 Structural redundancy
General principle:
2/4.1.2.2 (a) and (d)
Ships should be of redundant design and construction

so that localized damage of any one structural member
will not lead to immediate consequential failure of other
IMO Pilot Project
16 February 2007
Page 5
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 1
PAGE 10
CSR for Tanker
structural elements leading to loss of structural and

watertight integrity of the ship.
II.8 Watertight and weathertight integrity

Ships should be designed to have adequate watertight
and weathertight integrity for the intended service of the
ship and adequate strength and redundancy of the
associated securing devices of hull openings.
II.9 Human element considerations

Ships should be designed and built using ergonomic
design principles to ensure safety during operations,
inspection and maintenance of ships structures. These
considerations should include stairs, vertical ladders,
ramps, walkways and standing platforms used for
permanent means of access, the work environment
and inspection and maintenance considerations.

Ships should be designed under a reliable, controlled
and transparent process made accessible to the extent
necessary to confirm the safety of the new as-built
ship, with due consideration to intellectual property
rights. Readily available documentation should include
the main goal-based parameters and all relevant
design parameters that may limit the operation of the
ship.
References to other rules:

2/2.1.1, 3/3.1.1.2, 3/3, 5/2.1.2.3
watertight subdivision: 5/2
bulkheads: 8/2.5
watertight boundaries:
8/3.6, 8/4.7, 8/5.6
hull openings and closing
arrangements: 11/1
reference to other regulations:
3/3.1.1.2
size of access openings: 5/5.1.1.4
crew protection: 11/2
3/2
Novel designs:
3/4.1.2
CONSTRUCTION
II.11 Construction quality procedures

Ships should be built in accordance with controlled and
transparent quality production standards with due
regard to intellectual property rights. The ship
construction quality procedures should include, but not
be limited to, specifications for material, manufacturing,
alignment, assembling, joining and welding procedures,
surface preparation and coating.
II.12 Survey
A survey plan should be developed for the construction
phase of the ship, taking into account the ship type and
design. The survey plan should contain a set of
requirements, including specifying the extent and
scope of the construction survey(s) and identifying
areas that need special attention during the survey(s),
to ensure compliance of construction with mandatory
IMO Pilot Project
2/4.4
Materials:
6/4.1.2
Fabrication:
6/4.1.2
Welding and joint preparation:
6/4.4
6/5
2/2.1.2.1
2/2.1.3.1(a) and (c)
2/3.1.9
3/2.2.3.1(g)
11/5
16 February 2007
Page 6
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 1
PAGE 11
CSR for Tanker
ship construction standards.
II.12 Survey and Maintenance

Ships should be designed and constructed to facilitate
ease of survey and maintenance, in particular avoiding
the creation of spaces too confined to allow for
adequate survey and maintenance activities. The
survey plan in II.11 should also identify areas that need
special attention during surveys throughout the ships
life and in particular all necessary in-service survey and
maintenance that was assumed when selecting ship
design parameters.
2/2.1.3.1(d)
2/3.1.9.3 renewal criteria
3/2.2.3.1plans to be on board
5/5 access arrangements
11/2 crew protection
12/1.2 thickness measurements
3/2.2.2.1(d)
5/5
The ship should be designed, constructed and

equipped to provide adequate means of access to all
internal structures to facilitate overall and close-up
inspections and thickness measurements.
II.15 Recycling
2/2.1.1
3/3.3
Ships should be designed and constructed of materials

for environmentally acceptable recycling without
compromising the safety and operational efficiency of
the ship.
IMO Pilot Project

16 February 2007
Page 7
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 1
PAGE 12
IMO Pilot Project

16 February 2007
Page 8
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 1
PAGE 13
5.
Commentary
Tier II Functional Requirements
To demonstrate how the CSR/Tankers address the IMO GBS Tier II Functional
Requirements, each of the functional requirements is listed followed by a description of
how the CSR/Tanker relates.
This report has been organized by sections according to the GBS functional
requirements, however the Rules themselves are organized similar to a typical design
flow as illustrated in the figure below, which is Figure 2.5.1 from the CSR.
IMO Pilot Project

16 February 2007
Page 9
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 1
PAGE 14
Overview of Structural Design Process

Loads
Design Requirements
Operational
Requirements
Section 2/2
Static Loads
Section 7/2
Dynamic Loads
Section 7/3
Accidental Loads
Section 7/5
Design Basis
Section 2/3
Dynamic Load
Combination Factors
DLCFs Section 7/6.5
Load Combinations
Section 7/6
Loading Manual
Section 8/1
General
Rule Requirements
Static Load
Combinations
Section 7/6
Basic Information
Section 4
Static Plus Dynamic

Load Combinations
Section 7/6
Impact and Sloshing

Loads
Section 7/4
Structural
Arrangements
Section 5
Scantling Requirements
Materials
Section 6
General Detailed
Requirements
Section 11
Plating and Local

Support Members
Section 8/2
Longitudinal Strength
Section 8/1
Primary Support
Members Inc Bhds
Section 8/2.6
Minimum
Requirements
Minimum Thickness
Section 8/2
Stiffness and
Proportions
Section 10/2
Hull Girder Inertia
and Section Modulus
Section 8/1
Fore and Aft Ends

Section 8/3 & 8/5
Deck houses
Section 11/1
Machinery Space
Section 8/4
Structural design
details (welding,
brackets)
Section 4/3
Sloshing and Impact

Section 8/6
Other Minimum
Requirements
Criteria Assessment
Yield, Shear,
Buckling
Design Verification
Hull Girder Ultimate
Strength
Section 9/1
Strength Assessment
(FEM)
Section 9/2
Global Cargo Tank

Structural Strength
Analsis
Appendix B/2
Criteria Assessment
IMO Pilot Project

Local Fine Mesh

Structural Strength
Analysis
Appendix B/3
Criteria Assessment
Yield, Shear,
Buckling
Fatigue Strength
Section 9/3
Nominal Stress
Approach
Appendix C/1
Hot Spot Stress (FE)

Approach
Appendix C/2
Criteria Assessment
Fatigue Damage
Evaluation of Hot Spot

Stress for Fatigue
Analysis
Appendix B/4
16 February 2007
Page 10
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 1
PAGE 15
DESIGN
II.1
Design life
Rating: The functional requirement is covered by CSR.

Comment:
In Tier II.1 of the Goal based standards the design life, defined in Goal 5 of Tier I, is to be
25 years.
CSR definitions of design life are given in Section 2/3.1.3. These definitions are
essentially the same as the one provided in Tier I.
The design life of 25 years is an input parameter for the determination of the values of
the scantling loads, fatigue loads, expected fatigue life and corrosion wastage
allowances:
.1 In CSR, the characteristic value of loads used in ultimate strength analysis is the
expected maximum load likely to be encountered during the design life, i.e. 25
years. With a mean wave period of about 9 seconds, 25 years corresponds to 108
cycles. Influence of design life variations on characteristic loads is negligible: less
than 1% variation for a life increase of five years from 20 to 25 years as compared to
typical pre-CSR requirements.
.2 The increase of design fatigue life from the past practice of 20 years to 25 years has
an important influence on the fatigue checking of the structure, see section 5.II.4
Fatigue of this report.
.3 To take into account general uniform corrosion of the structure of the ships, values
of wastage allowances are given in CSR Rules. The wastage allowances were
determined such that 95% of the measured thicknesses present in the IACS statistics
are larger than the renewal thickness given in the rules at the end of the design life
(25 years of service).
CSR Reference:
CSR-reference
Sec 2/3.1.3
Sec 2/5.4.2.4
II.2
content
Design life
Description regarding the 108
cycles
comment
Environmental conditions

Comment:
The functional requirement II.2 is covered by CSR for Tankers. The rule text explicitly
specifies that the rule requirements are based on a ship trading in the North Atlantic
wave environment for its entire design life.
.1 Sea state data
It is specified in the rule text that wave loads are derived using the sea state data given
in IACS Recommendation No. 34. This recommendation gives the wave data using a
IMO Pilot Project
16 February 2007
Page 11
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 1
PAGE 16
scatter diagram where the probability of sea-states is described as occurrences per

100000 observations. The area covered by the scatter diagram is also specified. The
scatter diagram given in Rec. 34 is developed based on wave data obtained from British
Marine Technology.
The sea-state data that the rule requirements are based on, and background
documentation of the scatter diagram used, can be found in the following publications:
- IACS Recommendation No. 34, Standard Wave Data
- British Marine Technology (Primary contributors Hogben N., Da Cunha, L.F. and
Oliver, H.N.). Global Wave Statistics, Unwin Brothers Limited, London 1986.
- Bitner-Gregersen, E.M., Cramer, E.H., Korbijin, F., Environmental Description for
Long-term Load Response of Ship Structures, ISOPE June 1995, The Hague, The
Netherlands.
CSR reference:
CSR-reference
Sec 2/3.1.7.1
content
External environment
comment
.2 Environmental loads
The basis for the development of load formulations using the specified wave
environment is explained in the following.
The Rule formulations for the wave loads are based on envelope values calculated by
numerical wave load analysis and regression analysis, and calibrated with feedback
from service experience and model tests. The envelope value is the long term value, at a
given probability level, taking into consideration the effect of all wave headings.
The general principles for the derivation of the wave load values are:
(a) the application of load values is consistent for all similar load scenarios
(b) the characteristic load value is selected to suit the purpose of the application of
the load and the selected structural assessment method, e.g. for strength
assessment the expected lifetime maximum load is applied while for fatigue
assessment an average value representing the expected load history is applied
(c) load calculations are performed using 3-D linear hydrodynamic computational
tools. The effects of speed are considered
(d) the derivation of characteristic wave loads is based on a long term statistical
approach which includes representation of the wave environment (North
Atlantic scatter diagram), probability of ship/wave heading and probability of
load value exceedance based on IACS Rec. 34. All of which result in envelope
values
(e) non-linear effects are considered for the expected lifetime maximum loads.
The hydrodynamic calculations are based on:
(a) the Pierson-Moskowitz wave spectrum
(b) a wave energy-spreading of cos2
(c) an equal probability on all wave headings
(d) a 30 degree step of ship/wave heading
The speed and loading condition are chosen based on the corresponding application of
load and the structural assessment method. Thus, for:
(a) strength evaluation; a heavy ballast condition and a full load condition at scantling
draught have been used for the assessment, applying no forward speed, as tankers are
IMO Pilot Project
16 February 2007
Page 12
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 1
PAGE 17
full-form ships with negligible manoeuvring speed in extreme heavy weather due to
voluntary and involuntary reasons;
(b) fatigue assessment; normal ballast and full load condition at design draught have
been evaluated as the two most common sailing conditions. A speed of 75% of service
speed has been taken as the average speed over the lifetime, taking into account effects
of slamming, bow submergence, added wave resistance and voluntary speed reduction.
The considered wave-induced loads include:
(a) hull girder loads (i.e., vertical and horizontal bending moments)
(b) dynamic wave pressures
(c) dynamic tank pressures.
The probability of occurrence is selected based on the purpose of application of the load
and the selected structural assessment method to be as follows:
(a) the loads for fatigue assessment are based on a probability of exceedance of 10-4,
which means loads which occur frequently. The 10-4 is the reference probability level
that together with a Weibull shape parameter and average zero-crossing period define
the expected load history.
(b) the loads for strength evaluation are based on a probability of exceedance of 10-8.
The probability level represents the expected maximum load during the design life. The
exception is the sloshing loads, where a probability level of 10-4 is used, which is a load
that occurs frequently.
General formulae for linear wave induced ship motion, acceleration, hull girder loads
and wave pressures are given at both 10-8 and 10-4 probability levels.
The design load combinations corresponding to the identified load scenarios
produce realistic design load sets suitable for the design and verification of the
structural capability. Design load sets apply all the applicable simultaneously acting
static and dynamic local load components and static and dynamic global load
components for the design of a particular or group of structural members.
The combination of dynamic loads considers all simultaneously occurring dynamic
load components. In deriving the simultaneously occurring loads, one particular
load component is maximised or minimised and the relative magnitude of all
simultaneously occurring dynamic load components is specified by the application
of dynamic load combination factors (DLCF) based on the envelope load value.
These dynamic load combination factors are based on the application of the
equivalent design wave approach and are given as tabulated values.
For scantling requirements and strength assessments, correction factors to account
for non-linear wave effects and operational considerations in heavy weather are applied
to the linear loads. In beam sea condition a heading correction factor of 0.8 to account for
operational considerations are applied to the linear loads. This is done because the
assumption of equal probability of all wave headings is not considered to be correct for
extreme conditions, since the ship in such weather will be steered up against the waves.
For the fatigue requirements given, the load assessment is based on the expected load
history and an average approach is applied. The expected load history for the design life
is characterised by the 10-4 probability level of the dynamic load value, the load history
for each structural member is represented by Weibull probability distributions of the
corresponding stresses.
IMO Pilot Project

16 February 2007
Page 13
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 1
PAGE 18
The fatigue analysis is calculated for two representative loading conditions covering
the ships intended operation. These two conditions are:
(a) full load homogeneous conditions at design draught
(b) normal ballast condition.
The ships life is divided into three operational phases with 42.5% in full load at sea,
42.5% in ballast at sea and the remaining 15% in harbour or sheltered waters.
Correction factors to account for speed effects are applied to the linear loads for fatigue
assessment. Also factors to calculate the loads at probability levels 10-8 and 10-4 are
applied.
CSR references:
CSR-reference
Sec 2/4.2.6
Sec 2/5.4.2
Sec 2/5.4.3
Sec 7/3
Sec 7/6
II.3
content
Environmental loads
Design loads for scantling
requirements and strength
assessment
Design loads for fatigue
assessment
Dynamic load components
Combination of loads
comment
Structural Strength

Comment:
The GBS Tier II.3 criteria calls for the documentation of the structural requirements
included in the class rules.
.1 Safety Margins
The GBS lists various items which should be taken into account when establishing
suitable safety margins in the rules. The items mentioned are each discussed as follows:
a) Environmental conditions:
The environmental loads included in the CSR, which are used during the assessment of
structural strength, have been based on a 25 year exposure to the North Atlantic
environment. The probability of exceedance levels for the various individual design
environmental loads are included in Section 5.II.2 of this report.
While the design loads of the North Atlantic have been used to formulate the design
loads, most vessels do not typically trade exclusively in the North Atlantic. Therefore
there is a safety factor associated with relating the actual environment under which the
vessel trades versus the North Atlantic environment, as the CSR have not included
reductions to the design loads to account for actual benign environments. The safety
margin varies based on the future trading patterns of the vessels.
IMO Pilot Project

16 February 2007
Page 14
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 1
PAGE 19
These environmental conditions are used to develop the dynamic wave-induced

components of the design loads for longitudinal hull girder strength and the strength
evaluation of local structural members.
CSR references:
CSR-reference
Sec 2/3.1.7
Sec 7/3
content
External environment
Dynamic loads
comment
b) Loading conditions:
Representative design cargo and ballasting loading conditions are specified to envelope
the actual vessel loading conditions. The design loading conditions include various
combinations of full and empty tanks to represent homogeneous, alternate, partial,
multi-port, ballast, and ballast management conditions. If actual vessel loading
conditions include non-typical conditions such as asymmetric loading or simultaneously
emptying all cargo tanks across a section, the Rules state that they also have to be used
in the structural evaluation.
While the Rule specified loading conditions which include checkerboard or alternate
tank loading have been used to formulate the design loads, most vessels typically trade
in homogeneous full load or ballast load conditions. Therefore there is a safety factor
associated with relating the actual loading conditions under which the vessel trades
versus the Rule conditions. As this depends on the unknown future loading patterns of
the vessels, there is no way of actually quantifying the safety margin attributed to this.
These vessel loading conditions are used to develop the static components of the design
loads for longitudinal hull girder strength and the strength evaluation of structural
members. Additional information on the loading conditions is included in Section 5.II.2
of this report.
The Rules relate the design loading conditions to the actual operation of the vessel by
specifying that loading conditions and operation instructions be included in the vessel
Loading Manual and/or Loading Instrument which will be used by the vessels
operating personnel. The Rules require that the Loading Manual include design
parameters and operational limitations upon which approval of the hull scantlings have
been based. Limitations on permissible still water bending moment and shear forces,
scantling draft, minimum draft, minimum forward draft, allowable cargo density,
ballast water exchange operations, and the design speed are to be included.
The following table, which is a partial copy of Table B.2.3 from the CSR, illustrates
representative loading conditions to be evaluated in the FEM analysis which are
included in the Rules.
IMO Pilot Project

16 February 2007
Page 15
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 1
PAGE 20
FE Load Cases for Tankers with Two Oil-tight Longitudinal Bulkheads

Still Water Loads
Loadin
g
Pattern
Figure
Draught
% of
Perm.
SWBM(2)
Dynamic load cases
% of
Perm.
SWSF(2)
Strength
Strength assessment
assessmen
against hull girder
t
shear loads (1b)
(1a)
Midship
region
Forward
region
Midship
and aft
regions
See note 3
100%
(-ve fwd)
2, 5a
See note 3
100%
(-ve fwd)
2, 5a
5a
1, 5a
5a
5a
Design load combination S + D (Sea-going load cases)

100%
(sag)
A1
0.9 Tsc
S
100%
(sag)
A2
100%
(hog)
0.9 Tsc
S
100%
(hog)
0.55 Tsc
see note 5
100%
(hog)
See note 5
100%
(-ve fwd)
See note 5
A4
See note 4
100%
(-ve fwd)
A3(6)
See note 4
0.6 Tsc
100%
(sag)
100%
(+ve
fwd)
See note 4
100%
(+ve
fwd)
0.8 Tsc
A5(7)
See note 6
100%
(sag)
See note 5
100%
(+ve
fwd)
See note 4
A6
0.6 Tsc
100%
(hog)
CSR references:
CSR-reference
Sec 2/3.1.5
Sec 2/3.1.6
Sec 7/2.1
Sec 8/1.1
Sec 8/1.1.2
Sec 8/1.1.3
content
Operating conditions
Operating draughts
Static hull girder loads
Loading guidance
Loading manual
Loading computer program
100%
(-ve fwd)
See note 4
comment
c) Local loads:
IMO Pilot Project

16 February 2007
Page 16
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 1
PAGE 21
The above mentioned wave-induced dynamic (D) and loading condition static (S) load
components are combined in order to calculate the maximum local loads (S + D) used to
evaluate structural members. Design loads included in the Rules also contain margins
to cover accidental (A) loads such as occasional overruns or overloads during loading or
unloading operations. This includes the height of air pipes and pressure relief vale
settings. Details of the determination of the local loads are included in Section 5.II.2 of
this report.
The following table, which is a copy of Table 2.4.1 from the CSR, indicates load
categories included in the Rules.
Load Categorisations
Operational Loads
Environmental loads
Lightship weight
Steel weight and outfit

Machinery and permanent equipment
Buoyancy loads
Buoyancy of the ship
Variable loads
Cargo
Ballast water
Stores and consumables
Personnel
Temporary equipment
Other loads
Tug and berthing loads

Towing loads
Anchor and mooring loads
Lifting appliance loads
Cyclic loading due to wave action

including inertia loads
Dynamic wave pressures
Impact loads or resonant loads
Dynamic loads and dynamic tank pressures

due to ship accelerations
Wave impacts
Bottom slamming
Liquid sloshing in tanks
Green sea loads
Accidental loads
Flooding of compartments
Deformation loads
Thermal loads
Deformations due to construction
CSR references:
CSR-reference
Sec 2/3.1.8
Sec 2/4.2.3
Tab 2.4.1
Sec 2/4.2.5
Sec 2/4.2.7
Sec 7/2.2
Sec 7/5
Tab 8.2.7
Tab 8.2.8
Tab 8.2.9
IMO Pilot Project

content
Internal environment (cargo and
water ballast tanks)
Load categorisation
Load categorisation
Operational loads
Accidental loads
Local static loads
Accidental loads
Design load sets for plating and
local support members
Specification of design load
combination, acceptance criteria
and other load parameters for each
design load set
Design load sets for primary
support members
comment
16 February 2007
Page 17
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 1
PAGE 22
d) Load combination:
Design load combinations combine local and hull girder load components to represent
design load scenarios. The effects of combining the dynamic (D) and the static (S) loads
are also included in the combined design loads. The design scenarios are selected to
encompass all scenarios that can reasonably occur during operation.
The loading scenarios include the assessment of tank boundaries, e.g. bulkheads, based
on the most severe combination of loading hence conditions are assessed with a full tank
content on one side and an empty tank on the other side. The situation with the tank
contents reverse are also considered. Similarly the shell envelope is assessed for
conditions at the deepest draught without internal filing and at the lowest draught with
maximum internal filling.
The loads are combined for evaluation of the hull girder and structural members in
order to consider the most unfavourable combination of load effects. A variety of
different load cases are applied in order to provide maximum loads applied to
individual areas of the structure rather than one load case which attempts to envelope
all maximum loads simultaneously, since maximum loads acting simultaneously do not
actually occur in operation.
These combined load effects are used to develop the longitudinal hull girder strength
and the strength evaluation of structural members. The following table, which is Table
2.5.1 from the CSR, illustrates the combination of loads.
IMO Pilot Project

16 February 2007
Page 18
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 1
PAGE 23
Load Scenarios and Corresponding Rule Requirements

Load Scenarios
Loads
Operation
(that the vessel is exposed

to and is to withstand)
Rule Requirements
Design Load
Combination
(specified in
Section 7/6)
Ref.
no
Notation
Static and dynamic loads

in heavy weather
S+D
Impact loads in heavy

weather
Internal sloshing loads
Design Format
(specified in
Sections 8 and 9)
see Note 1
Acceptance
Criteria Set
(specified in
Sections 8 and 9)
Seagoing operations
Transit
BWE by flow
through or
sequential
methods
1. SG + SL + DG + DL 2 R1
AC2
2. S SG + D DG R2/ R2
AC2
Impact
SL + Dimp 3 Rp
AC3
Sloshing
SG + Dslh 1 R1
AC1
Cyclic wave loads
Fatigue
DM i / Ni

in heavy weather
S+D
SG+SL+ DG + DL 2R1
AC2
Harbour and sheltered operations

Loading,
unloading
and ballasting
Typical maximum loads

during loading, unloading
and ballasting operations
SG + SL 1 R1
AC1
Tank testing

during tank testing
operations
SG+ SL1 1 R1
AC1
Special
conditions in
harbour

during special operations
in harbour, e.g. propeller
inspection afloat or drydocking loading conditions
SG+ SL 1 R1
AC1
Accidental condition
Accidental
flooding
Typically maximum loads

on internal watertight
subdivision structure due
to accidental flooding
for water tight boundaries

9
1. SL 2 R1
for collision bulkhead
2. SL 1 R1
AC2
AC1
Note
1. The symbols defined in this column are defined in the text of 5.4
Where:
DG
dynamic global load
DL
dynamic local load
DM
cumulative fatigue damage ratio
SG
static global load
SL
static local load
Ri
structural capacity
IMO Pilot Project

16 February 2007
Page 19
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 1
PAGE 24
CSR references:
CSR-reference
Sec 2/4.2.2
Sec 2/5.4.1.1 to 5
Tab 2.5.1
Sec 2/5.4.2
Sec 7/6
Tab 7.6.1
Tab 8.2.7
Tab 8.2.8
Tab 8.2.9
Tab B.2.3
Tab B.2.4
content
Design load combinations
Load-capacity based requirements
Load scenarios and corresponding
rule requirements
Design loads for scantling
requirements and strength
assessment (FEM)
Combination of loads
Design load combinations
Design load sets for plating and
local support members
Specification of design load
combination, acceptance criteria
and other load parameters for each
design load set
Design load sets for primary
support members
FE load cases
FE load cases
comment
e) Structural modelling:
There are two general forms for structural modelling included in the Rules. The first
applies beam and plate theory and prescriptive buckling formulations. The second
involves application of finite element modelling.
The first form of structural modelling consists of using engineering principles to
calculate section cross area, inertia, section modulus, web area and plate or shell
membrane properties, and is associated with the prescriptive rules covering such items
as bending, shear and buckling. This type of modelling is used to assess the structural
properties of the vessel during the initial stages typically employing a working stress
design (WSD) format. The working stress level is determined by applying the design
loads using beam and plate theory and buckling formulae. This working stress level is
then compared against an allowable stress. In many cases the formula is rearranged
mathematically to include the allowable stress and the result is the required structural
property such as thickness, section modulus, etc.
The Rules contain details on the section properties to be used with the Rule
requirements.
The second form of structural modelling using a finite element (FE) model also employs
a working stress design (WSD) format. The Rules include detail specification of the FE
model such as; model extent, structure to be modelled, openings to be modelled,
properties, element size, element type, aspect ratio, and boundary conditions. The FE
analysis employs a series of models using a global model to represent the overall hull
girder structure and then using local fine mesh models to review high stress gradient
areas and stress concentrations. Finally, very fine mesh FE models are used to zoom in
and assess the hopper knuckle connection between the inner-bottom and the hopper
plate. The Rules include detail specifications for the fine mesh models similar in content
to the global model mentioned above.
IMO Pilot Project
16 February 2007
Page 20
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 1
PAGE 25
It should be noted that all structural models employ the net thickness concept in which
the actual as-built thickness is reduced to represent in service diminution due to
corrosion. The net thickness concept is described in section 5.II.3.5 of this report.
CSR references:
CSR-reference
Sec 2/4.3
Sec 2/5.4.4.1
Sec 3/5
Sec 4/2
Sec 9/1.3
Sec 9/2.2.2
Sec 9/2.3.2
App A/2.2.2
App B/2.2
App B/3.2
App B/3.4
App B/4.2
App B4.4
content
Structural capacity assessment
Structural response analysis
Calculation and evaluation of
scantling requirements
Structural idealization
Hull girder bending moment
capacity
Structural modelling
Assumptions and modelling of the
hull girder cross-section
Application of loads and boundary
conditions
Boundary conditions
comment
Hull girder ultimate strength

Global FEM
Fine mesh FEM
Global FEM
Fine mesh FEM
Fine mesh FEM
Fatigue
Fatigue
f) Fatigue:
For fatigue considerations, please refer to section 5.II.4 of this report.
g) Corrosion:
For corrosion considerations, please refer to section 5.II.6.2 of this report.
h) Material imperfections:
The CSR include the IACS requirements for materials covering strength properties,
material grades and required application. The remainder of the detail requirements for
materials such as the chemical makeup, through thickness properties, testing, etc. are
referenced to be in accordance with the individual Classification Society rules.
While the minimum strength properties of yield and ultimate tensile strength are
specified in the CSR, the actual physical properties of materials fitted in the ships are
usually greater. However these margins are not accounted for and no safety margin is
attributed to this.
The strength requirements in the CSR are based on the assumption that the material is
manufactured in accordance with minimum strength properties and the allowable
under thickness rolling tolerances specified in IACS UR W13. Please also refer to section
5.II.11 of this report.
CSR references:
CSR-reference
Sec 2/4.4.1
Sec 2/5.5
Sec 6/1
content
Materials
Materials
Steel grades
comment
i) Construction workmanship errors:

IMO Pilot Project
16 February 2007
Page 21
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 1
PAGE 26
For construction and workmanship considerations, please refer to section 5.II.11 of this
report.
j) Buckling:
The buckling criteria in the CSR include various levels of complexity that build upon
one another.
The simplest buckling check is in the form of stiffness and proportion ratios that relate
simplified buckling and deflections to the most basic structural property such as panel
spacing, unsupported flange breadth or pillar length. Using the spacing, flange length
or pillar lengths, ratios are used to determine related permissible thicknesses. The next
level of buckling check is performed using prescriptive buckling based on classic Euler
buckling of plates, shells, columns and torsional buckling modes. Finally an advanced
buckling analysis un-stiffened and stiffened plate panels is based on nonlinear analysis
techniques. The most advanced buckling analysis includes an allowance for
redistribution of loads such that the ultimate capacity of the panel is calculated.
CSR references:
CSR-reference
Sec 2/5.4.5.2
Sec 8/1.4
Sec 8/2.6.1.6
Sec 9/2.2.5.3
Sec 10
App D
content
Structural capacity assessment
Hull girder buckling strength
Primary support members
Acceptance criteria
Buckling and ultimate strength
Buckling strength assessment
comment
Web buckling, ref. to 10/2.3

FEM
k) Residual strength:
For residual strength considerations, please refer to section 5.II.5 of this report.
.2 Strength Assessments
The GBS lists various items which should be assessed in the rules. The items mentioned
are each discusses as follows:
a) Members to be evaluated:
The CSR include requirements for the structural evaluation of all strength components
of the vessel. The evaluations of the cargo block region of the vessel is based on both
prescriptive and a finite element analysis. Prescriptive requirements are included for the
forward and aft regions and the deckhouse structure . See the following figure, which is
Figure 1.1.1 from CSR, for a map of references to the applicable CSR section.
IMO Pilot Project

16 February 2007
Page 22
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 1
PAGE 27
Schematic Layout of the Rules

Topic
Sections
Introduction
Rule Principles
Rule Application
Basic Information
Structural Arrangement
Materials and Welding
Loads
Aft end
& Machinery Room
Cargo Area
Topic
Sections
Machinery general structure
8/4.1
Hull girder strength
Machinery bottom structure
8/4.2
Machinery side structure

Machinery deck structure
Machinery internal structure
Topic
Fore end
Sections
Topic
Sections
8/1
General structure
8/3.1
Hull envelope plating
8/2.2
Bottom structure
8/3.2
8/4.3
Hull envelope framing
8/2.3
Side structure
8/3.3
8/4.4
Inner bottom
8/2.4
Deck structure
8/3.4
Bulkheads
8/2.5
Internal structure
8/3.5-3.9
8/4.5-4.8
Aft end general structure
8/5.1
8/2.6
Bottom slamming
8/6.3
Aft end bottom structure
8/5.2
Sloshing
8/6.2
Bow impact
8/6.4
Aft end shell structure
8/5.3
9/1
Aft end deck structure
8/5.4
Strength assessment (FEM)
9/2
Fatigue strength
9/3
Aft end internal structure
8/5.5-5.7
Topic
Hull openings and closing arrangements
11/1
Crew protection
11/2
Support structure and structural appendages
11/3
Equipment
11/4
Testing procedures
11/5
Ship in operation renewal criteria
IMO Pilot Project

Sections
12
16 February 2007
Page 23
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 1
PAGE 28
b) Failure modes:
The criteria for the assessment of scantlings are based on a working stress design (WSD)
method. The failure modes include yielding, buckling and fatigue. Deflection criteria is
also included and covered in the next section of this report.
The acceptance criteria included in the CSR have been related to the loading scenario as
shown in Table 2.5.1 as copied in this report Section 5.II.3.1.d. The failure modes
associated with the scenario are indicated in the following tables, which are Tables 2.5.2
and2.5.3 from the CSR.
Principal Acceptance Criteria - Rule Requirements

Plate panels and Local
Support Members
Acceptance
criteria set
Yield
70-80% of
yield
stress
AC1:
90-100%
of yield
stress
AC2:
Plastic
criteria
AC3:
Buckling
Control of
stiffness and
proportions.
Usage factor
typically 0.8
Control of
stiffness and
proportions.
Usage factor
typically 1.0
Control of
stiffness and
proportions
Primary Support
Members
Yield
70-75%
of yield
stress
85% of
yield
stress
Plastic
criteria
Hull girder members
Buckling
Control of
stiffness and
proportions.
Pillar
buckling
Control of
stiffness and
proportions.
Pillar
buckling
Control of
stiffness and
proportions
Yield
Buckling
75% of
yield
stress
NA
90-100%
of yield
stress
Usage
factor
typically
0.9
NA
NA
Principal Acceptance Criteria - Design Verification - FE Analysis

Global cargo tank analysis
Acceptance
criteria set
AC1:
AC2:
Yield
60-80% of yield stress
Local fine mesh analysis
Buckling
Yield
Control of stiffness
and proportions.
local mesh as 136% of yield

stress
Usage factor typically

0.8
averaged stresses as global

analysis
and proportions.

stress

1.0

analysis
CSR references: Sections 2/4.5, 2/5.4.1.5 to 10, Table 2.5.1 to 3, 2/5.4.5 and 2/5.4.6.
IMO Pilot Project

16 February 2007
Page 24
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 1
PAGE 29
Yielding: the yielding allowable stresses for bending and shear modes specified for hull
girder, primary support members and local members are generally shown in the above
tables. More detailed information on the allowable stresses for each individual
component is included in the CSR references listed below.
CSR references: Table 2.5.2, Table 2.5.3, Sections 8/1.2, Table 8.1.3, 8/1.3, Table 8.1.4,
Table 8.2.4, Table 8.2.5, Table 8.2.10, 9/2.2.5 and Table 9.2.1.
Buckling: the buckling allowable limits specified for hull girder, primary support
members and local members are generally shown in the above tables. More detailed
information on buckling criteria for each individual component is included in the CSR
references listed below.
CSR references: Table 2.5.2, Table 2.5.3, 8/1.4.2.6 to 8/1.4.2.8, Table 9.2.2, 10/2.3,
10/3.2.1.3, 10/3.3.2.1, 10/3.3.3.1 and D/4.
Fatigue: the fatigue criteria is associated with the design life of 25 years and exposure to
the North Atlantic environment. See Section 5.II.4 of this report and the CSR references
below for additional details.
CSR references: Sections 2/4.3.3, Tab 2.5.1, 2/5.4.3, 2/5.6.5, 8/1.5, 9/3, B/4, C/
c) Deflection:
Hull girder deflection requirement is covered by a minimum vertical hull girder
moment of inertia. Local structural deflection is generally covered in the CSR by
inclusion of minimum thicknesses, minimum depth-to-thickness ratios and buckling
control measures. The establishment of the deflection criteria was based on the existing
satisfactory service associated with the existing class rules.
CSR references: Sections 2/5.3.1.1(b), 2/5.4.5.1, 3/5.3.3.4, 8/1.2.2, 8/2.6.1.7 plus
individual requirements, and 10/2.
.3 Ultimate Strength
The ultimate strength evaluations cover hull girder properties as well as individual
stiffened plate panels.
a) Ultimate strength of the hull girder
The evaluation of the hull girder is the most important component of the strength
assessment. The CSR include hull girder longitudinal strength evaluations controlling
yielding and buckling based on working stress design (WSD) levels associated with the
static and dynamic load components. The in-service operational limits are also closely
controlled in order to remain within the WSD limits.
In addition, to provide an additional check for the hull girder, an ultimate limit
evaluation is performed to check the condition of the vessel in extreme at-sea conditions
using the following general expression.
IMO Pilot Project

16 February 2007
Page 25
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 1
PAGE 30
S Msw + W M wv sag
MU
R
Where:
Msw
sagging still water bending moment.
Mwv-sag
sagging vertical wave bending moment.
MU
sagging vertical hull girder ultimate bending capacity.
S, W, R are the partial safety factors for the design load combinations.
Partial Safety Factors

Design load
combination
Definition of Still Water Bending

Moment, Msw
a)
Permissible sagging still water

bending moment
1.0
1.2
1.1
b)
Maximum sagging still water bending

moment for homogenous full load
condition
1.0
1.3
1.1
Where:
partial safety factor for the sagging still water bending moment
partial safety factor for the sagging vertical wave bending moment covering
environmental and wave load prediction uncertainties
partial safety factor for the sagging vertical hull girder bending capacity
covering material, geometric and strength prediction uncertainties
Partial safety factors increasing the magnitude of the wave-induced bending moment by
20 and 30 percent are applied in conjunction with the permissible and most probable
still water bending moment respectively.
The calculation procedure for the determination of the hull girder bending capacity, is
included in Appendix A of the CSR.
CSR references:
CSR-reference
Sec 2/5.6.3
Sec 9/1
App A
content
Design verification - hull girder
ultimate strength
comment
Requirements
Procedure
b) Ultimate strength of plates and stiffeners

In general the CSR includes local plate criteria that employs working stress design
(WSD) format, however, some conditions and locations are permitted to approach the
IMO Pilot Project
16 February 2007
Page 26
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 1
PAGE 31
ultimate strength of a plate panel. The modes are defined in the advanced buckling
section 10/4 and Appendix D of the CSR as follows:
Method 1 buckling capacity with allowance for redistribution of load. This defines the
upper bound value of the buckling capacity and represents the maximum load the panel
can carry without suffering major permanent set and is effectively the ultimate load
carrying capacity of a panel. The buckling capacity is taken as the load that results in the
first occurrence of membrane yield stress anywhere in the stiffened panel. In calculating
this, load redistribution within the structure is taken into account. This redistribution of
load is a result of elastic buckling of component plates, such as the plating between the
stiffeners.
Method 2 - buckling capacity with no allowance for redistribution of load. This defines
the lower bound value of the buckling capacity. In calculating the buckling strength, no
internal redistribution of load is to be taken into account. Hence this is more
conservative than the upper bound value given by Method 1 and checks that the panel
does not suffer large elastic deflections with consequent reduced in-plane stiffness.
CSR references:
CSR-reference
Sec 10/4
App D
content
Advanced buckling analysis
Buckling strength assessment
comment
Requirements
Procedure
.3 Structure compatibility
a) purpose of the space
The structural requirements of the CSR include consideration of the purpose and
associated environment of the space to which the structure is exposed. This can be
either the external environment such as temperature exposure, marine corrosive
environment. or the internal environments of cargo, ballast and dry spaces such as
liquid density, temperature and corrosive nature. These environments which relate to
the purpose of the space influence the material grade requirements, corrosion additions.
CSR references: Sections 2/3.1.7 and 2/3.1.8.
b) structural continuity
Structural continuity, termination of members and alignment with backup structure is
covered in the CSR. The objective of the structural continuity requirements is to
effectively avoid hard spots, notches and stress concentrations. The CSR has
requirements for large hull girder longitudinal members as well as for the end
termination of primary and local members. Another important reason for including this
in the rules is to clarify the end connection continuity associated with the rule
formulations. For instance the continuity of the ends dictate the end connection of a
beam which in-turn dictate the bending moment, e.g. fixed-fixed or pinned-pinned, and
then influence the associated structural requirement. Therefore the rules contain quite
extensive coverage of this subject as listed below.
CSR references:
CSR-reference
Sec 4/3.2 to 4
IMO Pilot Project

content
Structure design details
comment
Local and primary support
member end connections
16 February 2007
Page 27
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 1
PAGE 32
Sec 8/1.6
Sec 8/1.6.5 and 6
Tapering and structural continuity

of longitudinal hull girder
elements
Structural continuity
Sec 8/2.1.4.7
Sec 8/2.3.1.3
Sec 8/3.1.3
General scanting requirements

Sec 8/4.1.3
Sec 8/5.1.3
Longitudinal bulkheads and

longitudinal stiffeners
End connections
End connections
Forward of the forward
cargo tank
Machinery space
Aft end
.4 Facilitate loading/unloading
In addition to the operating loads that most designers consider, the CSR also include
loading and unloading conditions in the matrix of design loads to be considered. See
CSR Table 2.5.1 as copied in this report Section 5.II.3.1.d. Loading conditions upon
which the vessel is approved, which include loading and unloading operations are
required to be included in the vessel Loading Manual as indicated in Section 8/1.1.2.2(b)
of the CSR.
CSR references:
CSR-reference
Sec 2/4.2.1
Tab 2.5.1
Sec 8/1.1.2.2(b)
content
Load scenarios
Load scenarios and corresponding
rule requirements
Loading manual
comment
Harbour/sheltered water
conditions
.5 Net scantlings
The net scantling approach is used to perform the ship design and verification
calculations using scantlings in an assumed future corroded condition. Therefore the
design is assessed for the critical load cases for the different assessment criteria such as
strength (e.g. yielding, ultimate strength and buckling) and fatigue, while in an expected
corroded condition. This expected corroded condition is typically defined in association
with the assessment criteria type and the structural arrangement of the vessel being
investigated.
While the expected corrosion additions which are to be used in design calculations can
be accurately defined in a design code or classification society rule, the actual corrosion
experienced in-service can vary depending on maintenance performed, coatings
provided, coating maintenance, cargo carried, ballast carried, operating environments,
loading/unloading processes, etc. Therefore the actual corrosion experienced by a
particular ship may be larger or smaller depending on the actual operating conditions
and maintenance of the ship throughout its life cycle.
Since the actual corrosion in-service depends on a wide variety of factors that can not be
fully anticipated and controlled, the Rules use a design net thickness approach that is
aligned and compatible with the associated thickness gauging and renewal
requirements that are applied to the vessel. Ships are subjected to thickness
measurement requirements during their lifetime. When local thicknesses measured do
not comply with the requirements, renewals are required to replace the local plating or
IMO Pilot Project
16 February 2007
Page 28
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 1
PAGE 33
stiffening members to their original condition, thereby keeping the individual structural
elements in a state that is generally thicker than the net scantlings used in the original
design calculations.
In-service diminution allowances for hull girder section modulus and the thickness of
individual structural elements are generally set by classification society rules. However,
it should be noted that resolution A.744(18), as amended, specifies allowable diminution
of the hull girder section modulus for oil tankers 130m in length and upwards and over
10 years of age (ref. resolution MSC.105(73)). Additionally, recommended criteria for
specific structural members of single side skin bulk carriers are provided in the IACS
Unified Requirements which are referenced by resolution MSC.145(77).
The in-service minimum thickness requirements contained in classification society rule
requirements (e.g., IACS UR S7) generally indicate stringent measurement criteria to be
used for the assessment of members contributing to hull girder strength and less
stringent localized measurement criteria to be used for the assessment of individual
local members. The following summary may be made:
.1
Hull Girder Longitudinal Strength Members the global corrosion or average

corrosion of the members contributing to the hull girder longitudinal strength are
permitted to waste to the degree whereby the hull girder section modulus is
reduced by no more than 10 percent. This in effect limits the corrosion of the deck
and bottom members to an average of about 10 percent of the original required
thickness. This is consistent with resolution MSC.105(73).
.2
Individual Structural Elements the local thickness diminution allowance for

individual plating and stiffening elements is typically in the range of 2.5 to 4.0 mm.
These local individual allowances are generally greater than the 10 percent average
which are also applicable for the structural members contributing to hull girder
section modulus referred to in .1 above.
.3
Local Pitting, Grooving and Edge Corrosion for completeness of the rules the
thickness diminution allowance for pitting, grooving and edge corrosion of plating
and stiffening elements, typically in the range of 25 to 30 percent of required gross
thickness, is included in the CSR. These localized items are checked in service and
renewed when necessary, but specific accounting is not included in the strength
criteria other than via calibration with actual vessel service.
In the CSR, the overall average corrosion for hull girder cross-section and primary
support members is given by simultaneously deducting half the local corrosion addition
from all structural members comprising the respective cross-sections. This replicates a
10 percent reduction of global strength which will later be monitored in-service. The
assessment of local scantlings is performed based on the superposition of stresses
associated with the reduced hull girder properties and the local stresses associated with
the local full deduction of the corrosion additions. In other words, the CSR assumes that
the structure is corroded locally to the maximum allowed and the hull girder is reduced
to the maximum allowed overall hull girder corrosion.
Since fatigue is a time-dependant phenomenon that takes place over long periods of the
ships life, stress calculations associated with fatigue should reflect variations in
thicknesses due to corrosion through the design life (e.g. consider full as-built
scantlings for the vessel in the initial stage of its operational life and expected design net
scantlings at the end of the assumed design life). However the CSR contains a
IMO Pilot Project
16 February 2007
Page 29
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 1
PAGE 34
simplification which uses the average scantling properties between the initial as-built
stage and the expected corroded state at the end of the assumed design life.
CSR references:
CSR-reference
Sec 2/4.3.4
Sec 4/2.4
Sec 6/3
II.4
content
Net thickness approach
Geometrical properties of local
support members
Corrosion additions
comment
Fatigue life

Comment:
In the goal based standards, the design fatigue life should be not less than the design life
and should be based on North Atlantic Environmental conditions.
The fatigue life calculation procedures of CSR are based on three common major
hypotheses:
.1
.2
.3
The long term distribution of stresses in the structure of the ship sailing in NorthAtlantic environment may be represented by a two-parameter Weibull law. The
best fit of the Weibull distribution to the North-Atlantic scatter diagram is obtained
by selecting a probability of occurrence (10-4) for the scale parameter of the Weibull
law.
The linear damage accumulation rule of Miners sum is valid and a unit value of the
damage ratio D corresponds to fatigue cracking.
The expected fatigue life is to be greater or equal to the design life (i.e. 25 years).
The Weibull law is defined as follows:
Pr obability ( StressRange < x)
x
= F ( x) = 1 exp[( ) ]
w
1/
With the shape parameter and w = Sr/ln(Nr) the scale parameter .

In the expression of the scale parameter, Sr is the stress range computed at 1/Nr
probability level. The best fit with the scatter diagram is obtained by taking Nr = 104
cycles. The value of is obtained by a fitting procedure and lead to a value around 1.0:
0.85 to 1.05 according to the rule set and the length of the ship.
The fatigue cracking appears when the damage ratio is greater than 1, therefore the
damage ratio D =
i = ntot
i =1
ni
is to be less than 1 where the number of cycles is summed on
Ni
the whole fatigue life of the vessel of 25 years. In the damage ratio expression, ni is the
number of cycles of stress range Si and Ni the number of cycles leading to failure
according to the S-N curve, at the stress range Si.
IMO Pilot Project

16 February 2007
Page 30
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 1
PAGE 35
CSR references:
CSR-reference
Sec 9/3
content
Fatigue strength
App C
Fatigue strength assessment
II.5
comment
Requirement, not less than 25
years
Procedure
Residual strength
Rating: The functional requirement is partially covered by CSR.

Comment:
The rules explicitly states that only intact structure is considered:
2/4.3.5.1 All strength calculations are based on the assumption that the structure is
intact. The residual strength of the ship in a structurally damaged condition is not
assessed.
Hence, requirements to residual strength as formulated in Tier II.5 are not explicitly
covered by the rules. However, it is stated as a general principle in the rules that the
ships structure is designed such that it has adequate structural redundancy to survive
in the event that the structure is accidentally damaged:
2/4.1.2.2(d) it has adequate structural redundancy to survive in the event that the
structure is accidentally damaged; for example, minor impact leading to flooding of any
compartment.
This statement indicates that the rule development implicitly covered residual strength.
This was based on typical inherent residual strength exhibited by existing vessels upon
which the rules were calibrated.
Flooding is included in the rules as an accidental load:
4.2.7.1 The accidental load scenarios cover loads acting on local structure as a
consequence of flooding in accordance with the assumptions made in IMO regulations.
This relates to the assessment of the watertight subdivision boundaries.
Only the local scantlings due to flooding pressure is checked. The effect of the flooding
pressure on the hull girder loads is not accounted for in the hull girder strength
assessment.
The effect of structural damage on the hull girder capacity resulting from collision or
grounding is not assessed in CSR.
The effect of collision damage in the upper part of the side was assessed using
probabilistic methods in the SAFEDOR project. The conclusion from this study was that
the intact condition is dimensioning for the hull girder strength, and that requirements
for the damaged case therefore could be omitted. This study is documented in the
following reference:
IMO Pilot Project
16 February 2007
Page 31
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 1
PAGE 36
Hrte, T. et al., Probabilistic methods applied to structural design and rule development,
RINA Conference, January 2007
Post-buckling behavior is included in the hull girder ultimate strength calculations, but
the calculations are only carried out for intact structure.
CSR references:
CSR-reference
Sec 2/4.3.5.1
Sec 2/4.1.2.2
Sec 2/4.2.7.1
Sec 7/2.2.3.4
Sec 7/5
App A/2.3
II.6
content
Intact structure
Design principles
Accidental loads
Flooding pressure
Accidental loads
comment
Protection against corrosion

Comment:
The following two sub-sections pertain to providing protection against corrosion or
anticipating corrosion in the strength calculations. The overall goal being that the
required scantlings meet the intended strength provisions thoughout the specified
design life.
II.6.1
Coating life
With regard to the mandatory use of coatings, the CSR includes it in Section 6/2
Corrosion.
The purpose and intention of this section is to ensure that the Rules are inline with the
SOLAS requirement with respect to corrosion prevention of ballast tanks.
The text provides reference to the requirements of SOLAS Reg. II-1/3-2, IMO Resolution
A.798(19) and IACS UI SC 122. The requirements are open with respect to application
date, which at the time of publishing the rules was yet to be finalized by IMO. It has
now been determined that the application date for vessels to which the CSR apply is 8
December 2006, which is based on the building contract date.
As described in the section 6/1.1.1.2, for ships contracted for construction on or after 8
December 2006 which is the date of IMO adoption of the amended SOLAS Regulation II1/3-2, the coatings of internal spaces subject to the amended SOLAS regulation are to
satisfy the requirements of the IMO performance standard.
The IMO performance standard means IMO Resolution MSC.215(82) Performance
standard for protective coatings for dedicated seawater ballast tanks in all types of ships
and double-side skin spaces of bulk carriers.
The referenced requirements cover the following items related to information and
documentation for II.6.
.1 Locations and/or spaces where coatings are required to be used
IMO Pilot Project
16 February 2007
Page 32
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 1
PAGE 37
.2 Types of coating to be used for the various spaces

.3 Reference coating performance standards
Regarding allowances when other corrosion prevention systems are used, the sections
6/2.1.2 Internal cathodic protection systems and 6/2.1.3 Paint containing
aluminium cover allowances when other corrosion prevention systems are used.
CSR references:
CSR-reference
Sec 6/2
II.6.2
content
Corrosion Protection Including
Coatings
comment
Corrosion addition
The CSR corrosion additions are located in Section 6/3.

Firstly, it should be noted that CSR for tankers does not employ a corrosion rate
approach but a more advanced approach using a stochastic corrosion propagation
model.
The CSR complies with the functional requirements of Tier II.6.2 Corrosion addition by
following the latter approach.
Local corrosion additions for typical structural elements within the cargo tank region are
shown in Table 6.3.1 and Fig. 6.3.1. In addition, the relation between corrosion addition
and wastage allowance is described in Section 6/3.2.
The local corrosion additions are derived by adding 0.5mm to wastage allowances for
the particular local structural element. The background on the relationship of corrosion
additions and wastage allowances is explained in Section 2/4.3.4 (Net thickness
approach) and the details on local wastage allowances, are explained in Section 12/1.4
(Renewal criteria of local structure for general corrosion) of the CSR.
Structures considered and the appropriate wastage allowance values for each side of
structural elements are as given in Table 12.1.2 of the CSR.
The 0.5mm is added in reserve for the wastage occurring between the inspection
intervals of approximately 2.5 years. The verification of the local strength of the vessel is
performed on the local net thickness (gross minus corrosion addition tcorr) and the global
strength of the vessel is performed at global net thickness (gross minus 50 percent of the
corrosion addition tcorr). As the wastage allowance is assessed based on thickness
measurements performed in connection with the renewal survey some margin is needed
on the wastage allowance as the vessel will operate for approximately another 2.5 years
before being re-assessed. During this 2.5 year interval the thicknesses should not reduce
below the net thickness.
In this context, as corrosion additions are completely consistent with wastage
allowances.
The total corrosion addition or wastage allowance values used in the CSR were
based on the stochastic corrosion propagation model and information that were being
IMO Pilot Project
16 February 2007
Page 33
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 1
PAGE 38
used by IACS ex-WP/S (Working Party/Strength) to arrive at wastage allowance values

based on historical data on record of gaugings. In some areas of the structure a extra
margin was added to account for the variability of corrosion based on service
experience.
The general philosophy for establishing corrosion additions or wastage allowances
was that they are to be:
(a) based, in general, on the premise that todays practice is a reference point, and
departures from todays practice will need to be backed-up with technical
justification;
(b) established based on the basic assumption of coatings provided (where required) at
time of newbuilding, however, there should not be provisions to reduce wastage
allowance values based on superior coating systems or extra-ordinary
maintenance of coating systems or another type of corrosion protection system;
(c) appropriate for a 25-year service life;
(d) based on absolute numbers, i.e., 4.0mm (not 25%);
(e) independent of type of local failure mode employed, i.e., yielding, buckling, or
fatigue;
(f) based on published data and recent experience of IACS member societies;
The following basic assumptions were made:
(a) with respect to stiffener and web members, wastage should be based on thickness
loss, not section modulus loss;
(b) wastage values, though linked to net thickness deductions, should first be
developed independently of the net thickness deductions, and based on the
philosophy outlined above;
(c) the wastage values should be based on typical wastage values experienced in
service for crude oil carriers;
(d) dependencies on cargo type and vessel size should be considered, but should not be
variables used for determining the actual value of the permitted wastage on a shipby-ship basis;
(e) structural elements within the same area, environment and orientation should as
far as possible have the same wastage allowance; and
(f) safety margins should not be included in wastage allowances (i.e., criticality issues
should be dealt with in net requirements, and not with an increase in the wastage
allowance).
Based on the above and following IMO discussion regarding GBS, IACS carried out
statistical analysis of collected corrosion data and evaluated corrosion addition or
wastage allowance values by using the 95 percent probability level corrosion
measurement values for a 25-year life.
Furthermore, each of the individual societies took into consideration data that they had
on hand regarding their own in-house reports and studies in addition to published
corrosion data when finally determining corrosion addition or wastage allowance
values appropriate for a 25-year service life.
CSR references:
CSR-reference
Sec 6/3
Sec 12/1/4
IMO Pilot Project

content
Corrosion additions
Renewal criteria of local structure
for general corrosion
comment
16 February 2007
Page 34
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 1
PAGE 39
References and Background Documents

[1] IMO Resolution A.798(19), Guidelines for the selection, application and
maintenance of corrosion prevention systems of dedicated seawater ballast tanks
[2] IACS UI SC 122, Corrosion Prevention in Seawater Ballast Tanks
[3] IMO Resolution MSC.215(82) Performance standard for protective coatings for
dedicated seawater ballast tanks in all types of ships and double-side skin spaces of
bulk carriers
[4] IMO Resolution MSC.216(82) Adoption of amendments to the international
convention for the safety of life at sea, 1974, as amended
[5] Sone, H. et al., Evaluation of Thickness Diminution in Steel Plates for the
Assessment of Structural Condition of Ships in ServiceClassNK Technical Bulletin
Vol.21, 2003.
II.7

Comment:
Requirements to structural redundancy are not covered explicitly by the rules. However,
it is stated as a general principle in the rules that the ships structure is designed such
that it has inherent redundancy See CSR 2/4.1.2.2(a):
The ships structure works in a hierarchical manner and, as such, failure of structural
elements lower down in the hierarchy should not result in immediate consequential
failure of elements higher up in the hierarchy.
This statement indicates that the rule development implicitly covered structural
redundancy. This was based on typical inherent redundancy exhibited by existing
vessels upon which the rules were calibrated. It is worth noting that a double hull by its
very nature is a very redundant structure. It offers structural redundancies against
collisions and groundings, including damages or failures of structural members in either
the inner hull or outer hull. The risk of a major structural failure or casualty is much less
in a double hull tanker than a single hull tanker because of its structural redundancy.
The use of criticality class during the rule development can be considered as
contributing to the redundancy of the structure. During the rule development, each
structural component was classified according to the criticality with respect to the
consequences of failure. At the top level of the hierarchy is the hull girder, while the
local plate element is at the bottom. This hierarchical structure was used for setting the
acceptance criteria and selecting the capacity models. As a consequence, stricter
requirements are applied to the elements high up in the hierarchy. This means that less
critical local elements will collapse first, without leading to collapse of higher-level
elements.
The use of advanced buckling methods for buckling assessment ensures redundancy of
stiffened panels, by allowing local plates to buckle and require that the stiffeners are
able to carry the redistributed forces. This principle gives strong stiffeners and weaker
plates, and thereby redundant panels.
In contrast to stiffened panels, corrugated bulkheads are generally not redundant, since
collapse of the plate flange leads to collapse of the entire bulkhead. The CSR does not
have special requirements for redundancy related to corrugated bulkheads however,
IMO Pilot Project
16 February 2007
Page 35
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 1
PAGE 40
additional and more complex acceptance criteria are provided and the buckling criteria
is lowered to account for this. Especially longitudinal horizontally corrugated bulkheads
are critical, due to their contribution to the longitudinal strength.
CSR references:
CSR-reference
Sec 2/4.1.2.2
App D/1
content
Design principles
Advanced buckling analusis
comment
CSR External background documentation, available on IACS Web Site:

Section 2/4.5.1 Criticality class of structural elements
II.8
Watertight and weathertight integrity
Rating: the functional requirement is covered by CSR.

Comment: The main principles of watertight and weathertight integrity with respect to
the subdivision of the ship hull (Sec 5/2 of CSR) are given by the SOLAS Convention of
IMO, referenced by Sec3/3.3 and Sec2/2.1.1 of CSR. The position of bulkheads in the
cargo area and therefore the number of bulkheads is, in case of the type of ship
considered, determined by the limits of cargo tank size with respect to the possible oil
outflow and the damage stability (Sec5/2.1.2). These limits are given in the current
MARPOL and SOLAS requirements, which are referenced by Sec5/2.1.2, Sec2/2.1.1 and
Sec3/3.3. Particular requirements with respect to bulkhead construction and scantlings
of watertight boundaries in different areas of the ship are given in Sec8/2.5, Sec8/3.6,
Sec8/4.7 and Sec8/5.6.
General requirements related to the securing devices for hull openings are prescribed by
requirements of the International Load Line convention and the SOLAS convention of
IMO. Particular, ship type specific items are sufficiently described in Sec11/1 of CSR. In
particular requirements regarding shell and deck openings are covered by Sec11/1.1,
requirements related to air and sounding pipes are covered by Sec11/1.3, requirements
for openings in superstructures and deck house sides are included in Sec11/1.4 and
requirements to overflows and vents etc. are included in Sec11/1.5.
CSR-reference
Sec2/2.1.1
Sec3/3.1.1.2
Sec3/3
Sec5/2
Sec5/2.1.2.3
Sec8/2.5
IMO Pilot Project
content
Reference is made to IMO
regulations
Reference is made to regulations of
international, national, canal and
other authorities
Reference is made to requirements
of national and international
regulations
comment
Statement that compliance

with national and
international regulations is
not necessary scope of class
approval but scope of review
by flag state administration
Watertight subdivision
Reference is made to requirements
of national regulations
Scantlings of Bulkheads
16 February 2007
Page 36
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 1
PAGE 41
Sec8/3.6
Sec8/4.7
Sec8/5.6
Sec11/1
Sec11/1.1
Sec11/1.2
Sec11/1.3
Sec11/1.4
Sec11/1.5
II.9
Watertight boundaries in fore-ship

area
Watertight boundaries in
machinery space
Watertight boundaries at aft end of
the ship
Hull openings and closing
arrangements
Shell and deck openings
Ventilators
Air and sounding pipes
Deck houses, companionways
Scuppers, inlets, discharges
Human element considerations

Comment:
Human element considerations with respect to the ships structure are mainly related to
sufficient opening-space for inspection, maintenance, repair and rescue operations,
guard rails, ladders, flush decks, covers etc. They are only in scope of classification rules
with respect to class surveys (sufficient opening spaces, breadth of access ways etc.). In
general this functional requirement is subject of national requirements of flag state
authorities and accidental prevention regulations of employers liability insurance
associations and similar organisations. Furthermore there does exist regulations of Tier
V like ISO and other industry-standards e.g. ISO 799 pilot ladders and DIN 81705
removable guard rails for seagoing ships.
The requirements are included relative to a number of different sections of the CSR.
Special requirements to the protection of the crew members by means of bulwarks and
guard rails are given in Sec 11/2.1.
Sizes of openings and details of portable plates are included in Sec 11/1.1
Sizes of access openings are described in Sec 5/5.1
Only the ship-type special requirements are introduced in detail in the CSR. For more
general requirements cross-reference is made to effective rules and regulations of the
flag state authorities such as SOLAS with respect to accidental prevention and
ergonomics.
CSR-reference
Sec3/3.1.1.2
Sec5/5.1.1.4
Sec11/1.1.11
Sec11/2
Sec11/2.1
Sec11/2.2
Sec11/2.3
IMO Pilot Project

content
Reference is made to regulations of
international, national, canal and
other authorities
Size of access openings
Portable plates
Crew protection
Bulwarks and Guardrails
Tank Access
Bow Access
Comment
see also table 11.2.2

16 February 2007
Page 37
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 1
PAGE 42
II.10
Design transparency

Comment:
The functional requirement as written is partially covered by CSR. The design process
itself is not addressed by classification rules. Elements of the functional requirements of
section II.10 are addressed in the sections of CSR as far as the compliance with the
classification requirement is to be assured; these are provided below. Neither of the
documents, nor any of the classification requirements, address the matter of intellectual
property rights. This issue is considered to be outside of classification matters and a
contractual matter between the owner, the builder and the manufacturer, as appropriate.
Section 3 contains requirements pertaining to documentation, plans and data that are
required to be submitted to the classification society. These documents cover the
loading information, calculation data. The plans and supporting calculations which
need to be submitted and/or supplied on board are listed.
Section 2/ 2.1.3 Responsibilities of Classification Societies, builders and owners;
2.1.3.1 These Rules address the hull structural aspects of classification and do not
include requirements related to the verification of compliance with the Rules during
construction and operation. The verification of compliance with these Rules is the
responsibility of all parties and requires that proper care and conduct is shown by all
parties involved in its implementation. These responsibilities include:
(a) general aspects:
relevant information and documentation involved in the design, construction and
operation is to be communicated between all parties in a clear and efficient manner.
The builder is responsible for providing design documentation according to
requirements specified in the Rules. Other requirements for information and
documentation are specified by the requirements and approval procedures of the
individual Classification Societies
quality systems are applied to the design, construction, operation and maintenance
activities to assist compliance with the requirements of the Rules.
(b) design aspects:
it is the responsibility of the owner to specify the intended use of the ship, and the
responsibility of the builder to ensure that the operational capability of the design
fulfils the owners requirements as well as the structural requirements given in the
Rules
the builder shall identify and document the operational limits for the ship so that the
ship can be safely and efficiently operated within these limits
verification of the design is performed by the builder to check compliance with
provisions contained in the Rules in addition to national and international
regulations
the design is performed by appropriately qualified, competent and experienced
personnel
the classification society is responsible for a technical review and audit of the design
plans and related documents for a ship to verify compliance with the appropriate
classification rules.
IMO Pilot Project

16 February 2007
Page 38
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 1
PAGE 43
Section 2/3.1.1.3 The design basis used for the design of each ship is to be documented
and submitted to the Classification Society as part of the design review and approval.
All deviations from the design basis are to be formally advised to the Classification
Society.
Section 4/3.1.1.1: A booklet of standard construction details is to be submitted for
review.
Section 9/2.1.2.1 A detailed report of the structural analysis is to be submitted to
demonstrate compliance with the specified structural design criteria. This report shall
include the following information:
(a) list of plans used including dates and versions
(b) detailed description of structural modelling including all modelling assumptions and
any deviations in geometry and arrangement of structure compared with plans
(c) plots to demonstrate correct structural modelling and assigned properties
(d) details of material properties, plate thickness, beam properties used in the model
(e) details of boundary conditions
(f) details of all loading conditions reviewed with calculated hull girder shear force and
bending moment distributions
(g) details of applied loads and confirmation that individual and total applied loads are
correct
(h) plots and results that demonstrate the correct behaviour of the structural model
under the applied loads
(i) summaries and plots of global and local deflections
(j) summaries and sufficient plots of stresses to demonstrate that the design criteria are
not exceeded in any member
(k) plate and stiffened panel buckling analysis and results
(l) tabulated results showing compliance, or otherwise, with the design criteria
(m) proposed amendments to structure where necessary, including revised assessment
of stresses, buckling and fatigue properties showing compliance with design
criteria.
Section 9/2.1.3.3 A computer program that has been demonstrated to produce reliable
results to the satisfaction of the Classification Society is regarded as a recognised
program.
Section 9/2.2.3.2 The standard load cases to be used in the structural analysis are given
in Appendix B/2.3.1. These load cases cover seagoing conditions (design load
combination S + D) and harbour/tank testing conditions (design load combination S).
Section 9/2.2.3.3 Where the loading conditions specified by the designer are not covered
by the standard load cases then these additional loading conditions are to be examined,
see also Appendix B/2.3.1.
Section 9/2.2.5.1 Cargo tank structural strength analysis. Verification of results against
the acceptance criteria is to be carried out in accordance with Appendix B/2.7.
Section 9/2.3.5.1 Local fine mesh structural strength analysis. Verification of stress
results against the acceptance criteria is to be carried out in accordance with Appendix
B/3.5.
IMO Pilot Project

16 February 2007
Page 39
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 1
PAGE 44
Section 9/3.1.1.3 The fatigue analysis is to be carried out using either a nominal stress
approach or a hot spot stress approach depending on the structural details, as
specified in 3.4. The procedure is illustrated in Figure 9.3.1.
Section 2/3.1.5 Operating conditions
3.1.5.1 The ship is to be capable of carrying the intended cargo with the necessary
flexibility in operation to fulfil its design role. Specification of cargo loading conditions
as required by the Rules and any additional cargo loading conditions required by the
owner are the responsibility of the designer.
3.1.5.2 The Rules assume the following:
(a) a minimum set of specified loading conditions as defined in the Rules are examined.
These are to include both seagoing and harbour loading conditions
(b) in addition to the minimum set of specified loading conditions, all relevant
additional loading conditions covering the intended ships service which result in
increased still water shear force, bending moments or increased local static loadings are
to be submitted for review
(c) the Trim and Stability Booklet, Loading Manual and loading computer systems
specify the operational limitations to the ship and these comply with the appropriate
statutory and classification requirements
(d) all cargo tanks are from a local strength point of view including sloshing designed
for unrestricted filling for a cargo density as specified in 3.1.8. Limitations to loading
patterns resulting in full or empty adjacent tanks as specified in the Rules and the
Loading Manual do however apply for primary support members and hull girder shear
force and bending moments.
The Rules refer to the loading conditions and design loading and ballast conditions
upon which the approval of the hull scantlings is based are. The conditions which, as a
minimum, should be included in the Loading Manual are listed (section 8, 1.1). The
Loading Manual is to include the design basis and operational limitations upon which
the approval of the hull scantlings are based. The information listed in Table 8.1.1- Design
Parameters is to be included in the Loading Manual.
Section 2/4.6 Principle of Safety Equivalence
4.6.1 General
4.6.1.1 Novel designs deviating from the design basis or structural arrangements
covered by the Rules will be subject to special consideration. The principle of
equivalence is to be applied to the novel design, hence it must be demonstrated that the
structural safety of the novel design is at least equivalent to that intended by the Rules.
4.6.1.2 The principle of equivalence may be applied to alternative calculation methods.
4.6.1.3 A systematic review process was undertaken in developing these Rules. This
identified and evaluated the likely consequences of hazards due to operational and
environmental influences on tanker structural configurations and arrangements covered
by these Rules. For novel designs, dependent on the nature of the deviation, it may be
necessary to conduct an independent systematic review to document equivalence with
the Rules.
The equivalence procedure is also addressed in section 3.4.
________
The information to be required for inclusion in the Ship Construction File is currently
defined in UR Z23, section 10.
IMO Pilot Project

16 February 2007
Page 40
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 1
PAGE 45
CONSTRUCTION
II.11
Construction quality procedures

Comment:
The functional requirements of section II.11 are addressed in the sections of CSR and in
IACS Unified Requirement Z23 as provided below. Neither of the documents, nor any
of the classification requirements, address the matter of intellectual property rights.
This issue is considered to be the contractual matter between the owner, the builder and
the manufacturer, as appropriate.
References:
CSR Tanker: Section 2/2.1.3 Responsibilities of Classification Societies, builders and
owners
Section 2/2.1.3.1(c)
(c) construction aspects:
the builder is responsible for ensuring that adequate supervision and quality control is
provided during the construction
construction is to be carried out by qualified and experienced personnel
workmanship, including alignment and tolerances, is to be in accordance with
acceptable shipbuilding standards
the Classification Society is responsible for auditing to verify that the construction and
quality control are in accordance with the plans and procedures.
The Rules address design and dimensions of welds as well as requirements for welding
sequence, qualification of welders, welding procedures and welding consumables
(section 6/4.4 and 5).
In addition to below reference in UR Z23, CSR section 6 requires that the structural
fabrication is to be carried out, in accordance with IACS Recommendation 47, Shipbuilding
and Repair Quality Standard for New Construction or a recognised fabrication standard
which has been accepted by the Classification Society prior to the commencement of
fabrication/construction, and lists what is required in the fabrication standard.
Section 2/3.1.9
The structural requirements included in the Rules were developed with the assumption
that construction and repair will follow acceptable shipbuilding and repair standards
and tolerances. The Rules may require that additional attention is paid during
construction and repair of critical areas of the structure.
The Rules define the renewal criteria for the individual structural items. The structural
requirements included are developed on the assumption that the structure will be
subject to periodical survey in accordance with individual Classification Society Rules
and Regulations.
UR Z23 will be implemented into individual IACS Members Rules and Regulations.
UR Z23, 7.4
IMO Pilot Project
16 February 2007
Page 41
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 1
PAGE 46
Shipbuilding quality standards for the hull structure during new construction are to be
reviewed and agreed during the kick-off meeting. Structural fabrication is to be carried
out in accordance with IACS Recommendation 47, Shipbuilding and Repair Quality
Standard for New Construction, or a recognized fabrication standard which has been
accepted by the Classification Society prior to the commencement of
fabrication/construction. The work is to be carried out in accordance with the Rules and
under survey of the classification society.
Table 1 provides a list of surveyable items for the hull structure covered by this UR and
address welding consumables, welder qualification, welding mechanical properties
(welding procedures), welding equipment, welding environment, welding supervision,
welding- surface discontinuities, welding embedded discontinuities, steel preparation
and fit up, surface preparation, marking and cutting, straightening, forming, conformity
with alignment/fit up/gap criteria, conformity for critical areas with alignment/fit up
or weld configuration, steelwork process, e.g. sub-assembly, block, grand and mega
block assembly, pre-erection and erection, closing plates, remedial work and alteration,
tightness testing, including leak and hose testing, hydropneumatic testing, structural
testing, corrosion protection systems, e.g. coatings, cathodic protection, installation,
welding and testing of: hatch covers, doors and ramps integral with the shell and
bulkheads, rudders, forgings and castings, appendages, equipment forming the
watertight and weathertight integrity of the ship, e.g. overboard discharges, air pipes,
ventilators, freeboard marks and draft marks, principal dimensions.
II.12
Survey

Comment:
This functional requirement is addressed in IACS Unified Requirement Z23, in
particular paragraphs 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3 and Table 1 focusing on the specific activities that
need to be planned for and addressed.
Prior to commencing any newbuilding project, the society is to discuss with the
shipbuilder at a kick off meeting the items listed in Table 1. The purpose of the meeting
is to agree how the list of specific activities shown in Table 1 is to be addressed. The
meeting is to take into account the shipbuilders construction facilities and ship type and
deal with sub-contractors if it is known that the builder proposes to use them. The
shipyard is to be informed of likely intervals for sampling and patrol activities. A record
of the meeting is to be made, based upon the contents of the Table the Table can be
used as the record with comments made into the appropriate column. If the society has
nominated a surveyor for a specific newbuilding project then the surveyor is to attend
the kick off meeting. The builder is to be asked to agree to undertake ad hoc for the
builder to agree to keep the classification society advised of the progress of any
investigation. Whenever an investigation is undertaken, the builder is to be requested, in
principle, to agree to suspend relevant construction activities if warranted by the
severity of the problem.
The records are to take note of specific published Administration requirements and
interpretations of statutory requirements.
The record of the meeting is to be updated as the construction process progresses in the
light of changing circumstances, e.g. if the shipbuilder chooses to use or change subIMO Pilot Project
16 February 2007
Page 42
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 1
PAGE 47
contractors, or to incorporate any modifications necessitated by changes in production

or inspection methods, rules and regulations, structural modifications, or in the event
where increased inspection requirements are deemed necessary as a result of a
substantial non-conformance or otherwise.
II.13
Survey and Maintenance

Comment:
The functional requirement is fulfilled with respect to design and construction
requirements to allow adequate survey of the structure. This includes the avoidance of
closed spaces and the size of access openings (Sec 5/5 and Sec11/2.2, 2.3 and table
11.2.2).
Criteria for planning survey and maintenance are not explicitly included in the CSR. A
reference is made to the Unified Requirement Z 10.4 of IACS with respect to the
assessment and the related inspections and surveys for thickness measurements in
section 12/1.2.1. The hull survey for new constructions is regulated by the Unified
Requirement Z 23.
It is stated, that the CSR do not include requirements related to the verification of
compliance with the rules during construction and operation in section 2/2.1.3. The
owner and the individual Classification Society are responsible for maintaining the ship
and verify the compliance with the class requirements in accordance with the
Classification Society survey scheme as stated in Sec 2/2.1.3.1(d).
CSR-reference
Sec2/2.1.3
Sec5/5
Sec5/5.1.1.4
Sec11/2.2
Sec11/2.3
Sec12/1.2
II.14
content
Responsibilities of Classification
Societies, builders and owners
Access Arrangements
Size of access openings
Tank Access
Bow Access
Assessment of thickness
measurements
comment

Reference to UR Z 10.4 and
requirements of individual
Classification Society
Structural accessibility
Rating: The functional requirement is not covered by CSR.

Comment:
In the goal based standards, means of access to the ships structure for inspection and
thickness measurements are required according to Tier II.14.
The CSR refers to SOLAS Ch II-1, Part A-1, regulation 3-6, see CSR Section 5/5.
IMO Pilot Project
16 February 2007
Page 43
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 1
PAGE 48
Both sets of rules add requirements for access to specific areas: duct keel and pipe tunnel
in CSR for oil tankers, shaft tunnels and steering gear compartment in CSR for bulk
carriers.
Reference documents
Reference documents are the SOLAS requirements Ch II-1 regulation 3-6, resolution
MSC 158(78) and IACS UI SC 191.
II.15
Recycling
Rating: The functional requirement is not covered by CSR.

Comment: Recycling matters are not scope of todays classification rules. Therefore
requirements regarding recycling of the ship structure are not explicitly included in
CSR. Reference is made, that other national or international rules and regulations may
exist, which are relevant for the particular ship. It is noted that the MEPC plans to
address this topic in a future IMO mandatory instrument on Recycling of Ships.
6.
Conclusions
This report was prepared by IACS to provide a working example of how IACS in the
future may provide background documentation illustrating how classification rules
meet the GBS. This was done to assist IMO conduct a pilot trial application of Tier III of
the GBS for oil tankers and bulk carriers. The intention of the pilot is to validate the Tier III
verification framework, identifying shortcomings and making proposals for
improvement. The pilot project will test the IMO GBS Tier III Verification Framework
and not actually be the verification of the IACS CSR at this time.
IMO Pilot Project

16 February 2007
Page 44
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 1
PAGE 49
Appendix A
IMO Goal-based New Ship Construction Standards
To assist the Pilot Project members, the following is a copy of the GBS Tier I and II.
TIER I 1
Ships are to be designed and constructed for a specified design life to be safe and
environmentally friendly, when properly operated and maintained under the specified
operating and environmental conditions, in intact and specified damage conditions,
throughout their life.
.1 Safe and environmentally friendly means the ship shall have adequate strength,
integrity and stability to minimize the risk of loss of the ship or pollution to the
marine environment due to structural failure, including collapse, resulting in
flooding or loss of watertight integrity.
.2 Environmentally friendly also includes the ship being constructed of materials
for environmentally acceptable dismantling and recycling.
.3 Safety also includes the ships structure being arranged to provide for safe
access, escape, inspection and proper maintenance.
.4 Specified operating and environmental conditions are defined by the operating
area for the ship throughout its life and cover the conditions, including
intermediate conditions, arising from cargo and ballast operations in port,
waterways and at sea.
.5 Specified design life is the nominal period that the ship is assumed to be
exposed to operating and/or environmental conditions and/or the corrosive
environment and is used for selecting appropriate ship design parameters.
However, the ships actual service life may be longer or shorter depending on
the actual operating conditions and maintenance of the ship throughout its life
cycle.
Report of MSC 80, MSC 80/24, paragraph 6.39
IMO Pilot Project

16 February 2007
Appendix A - Page 1
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 1
PAGE 50
TIER II FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS 2

(Applicable to new oil tankers and bulk carriers in unrestricted navigation*)
DESIGN
II.1 Design life
The specified design life is not to be less than 25 years.
Ships should be designed in accordance with North Atlantic environmental conditions and
relevant long-term sea state scatter diagrams.
Ships should be designed with suitable safety margins:
.1 to withstand, at net scantlings**, in the intact condition, the environmental conditions
anticipated for the ships design life and the loading conditions appropriate for them,
which should include full homogeneous and alternate loads, partial loads, multi-port
and ballast voyage, and ballast management condition loads and occasional
overruns/overloads during loading/unloading operations, as applicable to the class
designation; and
.2 appropriate for all design parameters whose calculation involves a degree of
uncertainty, including loads, structural modelling, fatigue, corrosion, material
imperfections, construction workmanship errors, buckling and residual strength.
The structural strength should be assessed against excessive deflection and failure modes,
including but not limited to buckling, yielding and fatigue. Ultimate strength calculations
should include ultimate hull girder capacity and ultimate strength of plates and stiffeners. The
ships structural members should be of a design that is compatible with the purpose of the
space and ensures a degree of structural continuity. The structural members of ships should be
designed to facilitate load/discharge for all contemplated cargoes to avoid damage by
loading/discharging equipment which may compromise the safety of the structure.
II.4 Fatigue life
The design fatigue life should not be less than the ships design life and should be based on the
environmental conditions in II.2.
Report of MSC 82, MSC 82/WP.5, ANNEX I

Unrestricted navigation means that the ship is not subject to any geographical
restrictions (i.e. any oceans, any seasons) except as limited by the ships capability for
operation in ice.
2
*
The net scantlings should provide the structural strength required to sustain the design loads,
assuming the structure in intact condition and excluding any addition for corrosion.
**
IMO Pilot Project

16 February 2007
Appendix A - Page 2
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 1
PAGE 51
Ships should be designed to have sufficient strength to withstand the wave and internal loads
in specified damaged conditions such as collision, grounding or flooding. Residual strength
calculations should take into account the ultimate reserve capacity of the hull girder, including
permanent deformation and post-buckling behaviour. Actual foreseeable scenarios should be
investigated in this regard as far as is reasonably practicable.
Measures are to be applied to ensure that net scantlings required to meet structural strength
provisions are maintained throughout the specified design life. Measures include, but are not
limited to, coatings, corrosion additions, cathodic protection, impressed current systems, etc.
II.6.1 Coating life
Coatings should be applied and maintained in accordance with manufacturers specifications
concerning surface preparation, coating selection, application and maintenance. Where coating
is required to be applied, the design coating life is to be specified. The actual coating life may
be longer or shorter than the design coating life, depending on the actual conditions and
maintenance of the ship. Coatings should be selected as a function of the intended use of the
compartment, materials and application of other corrosion prevention systems, e.g. cathodic
protection or other alternatives.
The corrosion addition should be added to the net scantling and should be adequate for the
specified design life. The corrosion addition should be determined on the basis of exposure to
corrosive agents such as water, cargo or corrosive atmosphere, or mechanical wear, and
whether the structure is protected by corrosion prevention systems, e.g. coating, cathodic
protection or by alternative means. The design corrosion rates (mm/year) should be evaluated
in accordance with statistical information established from service experience and/or
accelerated model tests. The actual corrosion rate may be greater or smaller than the design
corrosion rate, depending on the actual conditions and maintenance of the ship.
Ships should be of redundant design and construction so that localized damage of any one
structural member will not lead to immediate consequential failure of other structural elements
leading to loss of structural and watertight integrity of the ship.
II.8 Watertight and weathertight integrity
Ships should be designed to have adequate watertight and weathertight integrity for the
intended service of the ship and adequate strength and redundancy of the associated securing
devices of hull openings.
II.9 Human element considerations
Ships should be designed and built using ergonomic design principles to ensure safety during
operations, inspection and maintenance of ships structures. These considerations should
include stairs, vertical ladders, ramps, walkways and standing platforms used for permanent
means of access, the work environment and inspection and maintenance considerations.
IMO Pilot Project
16 February 2007
Appendix A - Page 3
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 1
PAGE 52

Ships should be designed under a reliable, controlled and transparent process made accessible
to the extent necessary to confirm the safety of the new as-built ship, with due consideration to
intellectual property rights. Readily available documentation should include the main goalbased parameters and all relevant design parameters that may limit the operation of the ship.
CONSTRUCTION
Ships should be built in accordance with controlled and transparent quality production
standards with due regard to intellectual property rights. The ship construction quality
procedures should include, but not be limited to, specifications for material, manufacturing,
alignment, assembling, joining and welding procedures, surface preparation and coating.
II.12 Survey
A survey plan should be developed for the construction phase of the ship, taking into account
the ship type and design. The survey plan should contain a set of requirements, including
specifying the extent and scope of the construction survey(s) and identifying areas that need
special attention during the survey(s), to ensure compliance of construction with mandatory
ship construction standards.
Ships should be designed and constructed to facilitate ease of survey and maintenance, in
particular avoiding the creation of spaces too confined to allow for adequate survey and
maintenance activities. The survey plan in II.12 should also identify areas that need special
attention during surveys throughout the ships life and in particular all necessary in-service
survey and maintenance that was assumed when selecting ship design parameters.
The ship should be designed, constructed and equipped to provide adequate means of access to
all internal structures to facilitate overall and close-up inspections and thickness measurements.
II.15 Recycling
Ships should be designed and constructed of materials for environmentally acceptable
recycling without compromising the safety and operational efficiency of the ship.
IMO Pilot Project

16 February 2007
Appendix A - Page 4
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 1
PAGE 53
Appendix B
IACS Common Structural for Double Hull Oil Tankers
This report was prepared in association with the IACS 2006 Common Structural Rules for
Double Hull Oil Tankers(referred to as CSR or Rules in this report), which entered into
force on 1 April 2006. A copy of these Rules is available from any IACS member or may
be downloaded from the IACS web site free of charge at the following:
www.iacs.org.uk
The CSR and this report refer to IACS Unified Requirements, which may also be
obtained from the above web site.
IMO Pilot Project

16 February 2007
Appendix B - Page 1
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 1
PAGE 54
IMO Pilot Project

16 February 2007
Appendix B - Page 2
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 1
PAGE 55
Appendix C
Background Documents for the IACS Common Structural for Double Hull Oil
Tankers
This report was prepared to assist IMO conduct a pilot trial application of Tier III of the
GBS for oil tankers and bulk carriers is not intended to actually be the verification of the
IACS CSR themselves. The Section 5 commentary of this report was generally prepared
in order to summarize and illustrate how the CSR relates to the GBS. It is noted that
some members of the Pilot Project may wish to delve deeper into the background of the
IACS CSR.
At the time of writing this report, IACS is in the process of placing a copy of the
background documents for the CSR for Tankers on the IACS web site. Once posted, a
copy of the background documents may be downloaded from the IACS web site free of
charge at the following:
www.iacs.org.uk
IMO Pilot Project

16 February 2007
Appendix C - Page 1
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 1
PAGE 56
***
IMO Pilot Project

16 February 2007
Appendix C - Page 2
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 2
IACS Technical Presentation

to the
IMO GBS Pilot Project
12 March 2007

Objectives
1. Pilot Project
Trial application of Tier III
Validation of Tier III
ID shortcomings and propose improvements
Not actual verification of the IACS CSR at this time
2. Submission from IACS
Provide working example of how IACS may provide
documentation to illustrate how rules meet GBS
Concrete example to assist Pilot Panel

CSR Tanker used for example
IMO Pilot Project Meeting - 12 March 2007
Self Assessment Table

Fully
covered in
CSR
Item
Partially
covered in
CSR
Not covered
in CSR
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 2
PAGE 2
Comment
DESIGN
II.1
Design life
II.2
Environmental
conditions
II.3
Structural strength
II.4
Fatigue life
II.5
Residual strength
II.6
Protection against
corrosion
II.6.1 Coating life
II.7
II.8
Watertight and
Self Assessment Table

Item
II.8
Watertight and
weathertight integrity
II.9
Human element
considerations
Fully
covered in
CSR
Partially
covered in
CSR
Not covered
in CSR
Comment
Partially covered. May be

addressed in future SOLAS
Reg.
Also addressed by other rules
or conventions.
CONSTRUCTION
II.11 Construction quality

procedures
II.12 Survey
II.13 Survey and

Maintenance
Addressed with respect to

design and construction
requirements to allow adequate
survey of the structure.
Addressed in SOLAS Reg II-1/3
on PMA.
II.15 Recycling
Will be addressed in future IMO

Reg. on Recycling of Ships.
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 2
PAGE 3
IACS views so far

1. For clarity, ease of understanding, and ability to modify
or adapt in the future; separate documents or sections

to be developed for the Tier III Procedure, Information /
Documentation, and Evaluation Criteria.
2. The information/Documentation and Evaluation Criteria
should be practical for the GoE and sufficiently flexible

to account for future technical development. (Previous
IACS comments included in Coordinators Consolidated
Text)
3. The Evaluation Criteria in Tier III should augment or
clarify Tier II, should not contain additional functional

requirements
4. Will need clarification on how to address GBS topics
that are covered by IMO regulations or industry

standard and not in the Class rules.
IACS views so far

Procedure
Information / Documentation
Evaluation Criteria
Long-term harmonization
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 2
PAGE 4
Full harmonization required for
Wave loads
Fatigue
Finite element analysis
Buckling
Prescriptive requirements
Long-term harmonization
Full Harmonization Plan
One year application and feedback period before long term

harmonization
Detail plan for full harmonization will be developed by the

Hull Panel by the end of the one-year feedback period
Three years of harmonization work
One year for implementation (industry review)
Full harmonization in five years from implementation

MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 2
PAGE 5
IACS Project Teams for CSR Maintenance
IACS implemented 2 Project Teams for CSR Maintenance
Active from 1st June 2006

PT for Bulk Carriers: 3 JBP + 1 JTP members
NK (Chair) + BV + GL + ABS
PT for Oil Tankers: 3 JTP + 1 JBP members
DNV (Chair) + ABS + LR + BV
Rotation among members every 2 years
Running of the PT governed by IACS procedure
IACS COUNCIL
PERMANENT
SECRETARIAT
R. Leslie
HULL PANEL
Chairman: T. Yoneya
CSR Oil Tankers
CSR Bulk Carriers
SG/CSR
NK, LR, BV, ABS
CSR Secretariat
G-Y Han
S. HARADA
Project Manager
ClassNK
G. CESARINE
BV
P. SALTVEDT
Project Manager
DNV
F. CHENG
LR
A. Schulz-Heimbeck
GL
K. ABE
ABS
R. NAGAYAMA
ABS
P. BAUMANS
BV
Objectives of PT / CSR Maintenance

Objectives: Cover the technical issues on CSR
regarding:
Questions and Answers (Q&A)

Common Interpretations (CI)
Amendments (Errata and Rule Changes)
Under the responsibility of the IACS Hull Panel
IACS Permanent Secretariat provides interpretation
and Q&A on Web Site
10
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 2
PAGE 6
IACS CSR Knowledge Center/Database
Centralized mechanism for collecting, categorizing and storing

questions and answers, feedback and responses, tasks and
pending actions, interpretations and rule changes
Basis for future improvements
External access to Q&A and Interpretations from IACS Web

Site
Transparency and consistent

implementation of the Rules
11

DESIGN
II.1
Design life
II.2
II.3
Structural Strength
II.4
Fatigue life
II.5
Residual strength
II.6

II.6.1 Coating life
II.7
II.8
II.9

CONSTRUCTION
II.12 Survey
II.15 Recycling
12
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 2
PAGE 7
II.1 Design life

The design life of 25 years is an input parameter in
CSR for:
the determination of the values of the scantling

loads
fatigue loads
fatigue life expected
corrosion wastage allowances
For the scantlings loads, the difference between 20
and 25 years of design life is insignificant (1%
difference)
For fatigue and wastage allowances, the influence
of extension of design life from 20 to 25 years is
important
13
Illustration of design life influence on scantlings loads
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-9
-8
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
Long term extreme loads amplitude is distributed according to a Weibull law,

exponent about 1
108: 25 years = 10x:20years
x=7.903
Difference : only 1% (8/7.903=1.012)

14
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 2
PAGE 8

DESIGN
II.1
Design life
II.2
II.3
Structural Strength
II.4
Fatigue life
II.5
Residual strength
II.6

II.6.1 Coating life
II.7
II.8
II.9

CONSTRUCTION
II.12 Survey
II.15 Recycling
15

Technical Comments
The functional requirement is covered by CSR
Rule requirements are based on North Atlantic
environment
Scatter diagram according to IACS Rec. No. 34

Rule load formulations based on numerical wave load
analysis
16
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 2
PAGE 9
Scatter diagram
IACS Rec. No. 34 scatter diagram for North Atlantic

Revised in year 2000
Wave data obtained from British Marine Technology
Probability described as occurrences per 100000
observations
17
Geographical area covered
18
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 2
PAGE 10
Derivation of rule loads

Main principles:
Numerical wave load analysis, using 3D hydrodynamic

calculations
Envelope values, considering all sea states and headings

Regression analysis, together with calibration
Correction factors applied to account for non-linear effects
and operational considerations
Speed effect included for fatigue loads

Load formulations covered by existing Unified
Requirements are maintained
19

Hydrodynamic calculations:
Pierson-Moscowitz wave spectrum
Wave energy spreading function of cos2
Equal probability of all wave headings
30 deg step of ship/wave heading
Rule load formulations derived for:
Ship motions and accelerations
External and internal pressures
Global wave bending moments and shear forces
20
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 2
PAGE 11

Strength Assessment
Fatigue Assessment
(ULS/SLS)
(FLS)
Most severe load expected
Expected load history
Equivalent design wave
Long-term distribution
approach
approach
Rule load at 10-4
Selected load cases for

maximised responses
Stress combination factors
Rule load at 10-8
Weibull distribution for
*Load
combination factors
total stress range

21

Design wave approach for strength assessment:
Dynamic load cases selected to maximize certain
load components using 25 year return period
For each load case, simultaneously occurring load

components are calculated using load combination
factors (LCF).
The LCF calculations are based on the equivalent

design wave concept.
A load combination factor indicates the magnitude of

a secondary response compared to its own maximum
rule value
Accounts for the relation between the wave heading,

wave period, wave amplitude and phasing of the
dominant response and the secondary responses
22
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 2
PAGE 12

Long-term approach for fatigue assessment:
Fatigue loads are calculated to represent the
expected stress range history
Weibull distribution
10-4 probability level is chosen as the rule reference
values
Forward speed of 75% of service speed is applied

Non-linear correction factors are not applied
Load combination on stress-level
Stretching of sea pressure over swl
23
Validation of rule loads

Vertical acceleration, VLCC
6.00
[m/s2 ]
5.00
4.00
JTP
3.00
W adam
2.00
1.00
0.00
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
rel dist from AP

x/L [-]
Vertical bending moment, VLCC

10000000
[kNm]
8000000
JTP
6000000
JTP Bellshaped
4000000
W adam
2000000
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
re l dist from AP
x /L [-]
0.8
24
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 2
PAGE 13
New data in wave statistics

Existing scatter diagram is based on visual observations
from ships
Based on large amount of data

Some uncertainty connected to the observations
Some effect of bad weather avoidance included in the
data
New data available:

Buoys, wave radars, satellites, ship response,
hindcast/forecast
All with related uncertainties, and rather large

variation in data
Ongoing research on modified scatter diagrams

25
Wave statistics - steep waves

Effect of steep/rogue waves not covered by CSR
Several research projects carried out during recent years,
e.g. the EU project MAXWAVE
Steep waves found to occur more frequently than

previously believed
Different physical explanations:

Wave-current interaction
Combined seas
Wave energy focusing
Wave loads particularly affected by steep waves:
Bow and bottom slamming
Green water on deck
Superstructure impact
26
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 2
PAGE 14
Wave statistics - steep waves

However, steep waves is still considered to be a research
topic
No consensus on the definition of a steep wave

Ongoing and planned projects to investigate unresolved
issues
Need more information regarding:

Probability of occurrence (statistical model)
Physical understanding of the phenomenon
Spatial and time representation of the wave (wave
model)
Structural behaviour, numerical load model

Could be covered in future rules as an ALS condition
27
Speed effect
No speed effect included in CSR for strength assessment

Speed reduction in heavy weather due to:
slamming
bow submergence
added wave resistance
voluntary speed reduction
Model tests on full form ships: Very small forward speed,

even in 5-year storms
Speed sensitivity studies carried out during CSR Tank

development:
VLCC and product carrier

Motions and accelerations
Global loads
External wave pressure
28
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 2
PAGE 15
Speed effect
Speed sensitivity studies:
Motions and accelerations
Vert Acc FP Sensitivity to Speed

8
7
Acc [m/s2]
6
5
VLCC (58) Design
VLCC (58) Ballast
3
2
1
0
0
10
20
15
speed [kn]
29
Speed effect
Global loads
VBM Speed Sensitivity VLCC Design
14000000
12000000
Zero speed
VSF Speed Sensitivity
VLCC Ballast
8000000
5 knots
6000000
160000
10 knots
4000000
140000
15 knots
2000000
120000
Zero speed
100000
0
0
0.2
0.4
[kN]
[kNm]
10000000
5 knots
80000
0.6
60000
x rel AP [-]
40000
0.8
10 knots
15 knots
20000
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
x rel AP [-]
30
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 2
PAGE 16
Speed effect
External sea pressure

VLCC Scantling Head Sea Pressures - 0.5L
25
20
0 knots
5 knots Head Sea Pressures - 0.5L
Product Scantling
15
10 knots
10
5
15 knots
10.00
LAN 0kn
Reference line
8.00
0
0
-5
12.00
10
20
30
6.00
0 knots
5 knots
40
10 knots
4.00
15 knots
2.00
0.00
0.00
-2.00
LAN 0kn
Reference line
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
-4.00
31
Speed effect
Speed effect findings:
Very small forward speed possible in extreme weather

Small effect of speed on the dynamic loads
Conclusion: No need for speed correction for ULS
32
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 2
PAGE 17
Load probability level

Design life of 25 years used
Probability of exeedance
in CSR
1.00E+00
Probability level of 10-8
1.00E-01
implies a return period in

between 20 and 25 years
1.00E-02
If 10-8 represents 25 years,
1.00E-03
Probability
1.00E-04
2
5
10
20
25
1.00E-05
1.00E-06
30
1.00E-07
then 10-7.9 represents 20

years
The difference in long-term

extreme load assuming
Weibull distribution is 1%
Actual number of response
1.00E-08
cycles depends on the ship

size and service time
1.00E-09
Extreme sea state:1.4%
1.00E-10
1.00E-11
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627
Hs
increase in Hs when return

period is increased from 20
to 25 years
33
Load probability level

Characteristic load taken as the most
probable largest value during the
design life (10-8 probability level)
Simplified design procedure, using

Weibull-fit to represent the long-term
load distribution
Assuming a Gumbel probability

function for the extreme load, this
implies a (1-1/e)=63.2% chance of
exceedance
1.0E+00
0
20
40
60
80
100
1.0E-01
1.0E-02
1.0E-03
1.0E-04
1.0E-05
1.0E-06
1.0E-07
1.0E-08
For large number of occurrences, the

Gumbel distribution becomes very
narrow
Probability of exceedance equal to

0.01:
H0.01/Hmp1.1
Accounted for by safety margins in the
rule requirements
34
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 2
PAGE 18

DESIGN
II.1
Design life
II.2
II.3
Structural Strength
II.4
Fatigue life
II.5
Residual strength
II.6

II.6.1 Coating life
II.7
II.8
II.9

CONSTRUCTION
II.12 Survey
II.15 Recycling
35
II.3 Structural Strength

Technical Comments
The functional requirement is covered by CSR
Tier II items to be addressed in the Rules include:
-
Safety Margins
Strength Assessments
Ultimate Strength
Structure Compatibility
Facilitate Loading/Unloading
Net Scantlings
36
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 2
PAGE 19

.1 Safety Margins
a) Environmental conditions
- 25 year North Atlantic used
- Most vessels trade in more benign environments
b) Loading conditions
- Representative design cargo and ballast loading conditions
- Envelope the actual vessel loading conditions
c) Local loads
- Static and dynamic loads maximized for local applications
- Include occasional overloads during loading/unloading
d) Load combinations
-
Combining local and hull girder loads as well as static and dynamic
components
Various loading combinations taken to maximize load effects on different

structural components
37
Route Information
38
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 2
PAGE 20
Sample Loading Conditions - Prescriptive

Table 8.2.7
Design Load Sets for Plating and Local Support Members
Structural Member
Keel,
Bottom Shell,
Bilge,
Side Shell,
Sheer strake
In way
of cargo
tanks
Deck
In way
of other
tanks
Any
location
Design
Load
Load
Draught
Component
Set (1, 2, 3)
Pex
Tsc
Pex
Tsc
Pin Pex
Tbal
Pin Pex
0.25Tsc
Pex
Tsc
0.6Tsc
Comment
Diagrammatic Representation
Sea pressure only
Pin
Pin
11
Pin-flood
Pex
Tsc
Pin
Tbal
Pin
0.25Tsc
11
Pin-flood
Pdk
Tbal
10
Pdk
Net pressure difference

between water ballast
pressure and sea
pressure
Green sea pressure only
or other loads on deck
Cargo pressure only
Green sea pressure only

or other loads on deck
Water ballast or other

liquid pressure only
Distributed or
concentrated loads
only. Simultaneously
occurring green sea
pressure may be
ignored
39
Sample Loading Conditions - FEM

FE Load Cases for Tankers with Two Oil-tight Longitudinal Bulkheads
Loading
Pattern
Figure
Still Water Loads
Dynamic load cases
% of
Perm.
SWBM(2)
Strength Strength assessment

assessment against hull girder
(1a)
shear loads (1b)
Midship
Midship Forward
and aft
region
region
regions
Draught
% of
Perm.
SWSF(2)
Design load combination S + D (Sea-going load cases)

100%
(sag)
0.9 Tsc
A1
S
100%
(sag)
0.9 Tsc
A2
100%
(hog)
100%
(hog)
0.55 Tsc
see note 5
S
100%
(-ve fwd)
2, 5a
See note 3
100%
(-ve fwd)
2, 5a
5a
See note 4
See note 4
100%
(-ve fwd)
A3(6)
See note 3
100%
(hog)
See note 5
100%
(-ve fwd)
See note 5
40
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 2
PAGE 21

Load Scenarios
Loads
Operation
(that the vessel is exposed

to and is to withstand)
Rule Requirements
Design Load
Combination
(specified in
Section 7/6)
Design Format
(specified in
Acceptance
Criteria Set
see Note 1
(specified in
Sections 8 and 9)
1. SG + SL + DG + DL 2 R1
AC2
2. S SG + D DG R2/ R2
AC2
Impact
SL + Dimp 3 Rp
AC3
Sloshing
SG + Dslh 1 R1
AC1
Cyclic wave loads
Fatigue
DM i / Ni

in heavy weather
S+D
SG+SL+ DG + DL 2R1
AC2
Ref.
no
Notation

in heavy weather
S+D
Impact loads in heavy

weather
Internal sloshing loads
Sections 8 and 9)
Seagoing operations
Transit
BWE by flow
through or
sequential
methods
41
Harbour and sheltered operations
Loading,
unloading
and ballasting

during loading, unloading
and ballasting operations
SG + SL 1 R1
AC1
Tank testing

during tank testing
operations
SG+ SL1 1 R1
AC1
Special
conditions in
harbour

during special operations
in harbour, e.g. propeller
inspection afloat or drydocking loading conditions
SG+ SL 1 R1
AC1
Accidental condition
Accidental
flooding
Typically maximum loads

on internal watertight
subdivision structure due
to accidental flooding
for water tight boundaries
1. SL 2 R1
for collision bulkhead

2. SL 1 R1
AC2
AC1
Note
42
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 2
PAGE 22

.1 Safety Margins (continued)
e) Structural modeling
- Prescriptive rules
- FEM
f) Fatigue (II.4)
g) Corrosion (II.6)
h) Material imperfections
- Minimum strength properties used, although actual

properties typically greater
i) Construction workmanship errors (II.11)
j) Buckling
- s/t ratios, prescriptive buckling and advanced buckling

method
k) Residual strength (II.5)
43
Structural Modeling - Local Scantlings

Pressure based
formulation
Plate
t = 0.0158k a s
p
C a yd
mm Ca = a - a
hg
yd
Stiffener (local support member)

p s l2
Z=
m C s yd
t w net =
cm 3
C s = s - s
hg
yd
f shr P s lshr
d shr C t yd
44
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 2
PAGE 23
p s l2
Z=
m C s yd
cm 3
F2
t=
mm
db f s
SM, shear area and sectional area of cross tie may be reduced to
85% based on satisfactory FEA
100%
0.2
50%
Shear
100%
0.2
100%
70%
Bending
0.2
0.2
100%
Distribution:
45

Permissible Stress Factors for Plate and Stiffener
(subjected to hull girder stress)
46
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 2
PAGE 24

Stiffener SM - combine Local Stress and hull girder stress at:
end span and
face plate side
Floor/Web
Floor/Web
compression
compression
Longitudinals
compression
compression
Pressure from attached plate side
Floor/Web
tension
Hull
Girder
Stress
Floor/Web
Longitudinals
tension
tension
tension
Pressure from stiffener side

47

Hull Girder Stress
- Total Bending Stress
SWBM
DLCF
for Mwv
DLCF
for Mwh
(z zna ) ( M sw perm + f lc v i M w v )
f
M w h y 3
lc h i
10
I h net off
I v net off
hg total =
Vert. Bending
Minus so that positive y makes

positive (tensile) stress
Hor. Bending
Tension (+)
N
Compression (-)
Compression
Tension
(-)
(+)
48
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 2
PAGE 25

Cargo Region
Tank
LCG
A .P.
0.85L
M achinery space
and aft end
F.P.
Forward cargo Forw ard

tank region
end
M id and aft cargo

tank region
Increase
Internal / External
Pressure
Increase
Reduce
SWBM / WIBM
Reduce
Reduce
Hull Girder SM
Reduce
49
Structural Modeling - FEM Analysis

Strength analysis by FEM to verify the ship structure is within

the class required standard
Analysis is required as part of the rules
Midship cargo region 3-tank FE model

General mesh size following stiffening system, e.g. 900 mm

Model based on average corroded thickness tgross 0,5 tcorr
50
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 2
PAGE 26
Structural Modeling - FEM Analysis, Fine Mesh
Fine Mesh Models - with 50x50 mm (or smaller)
51
Buckling
Stiffness and proportion requirements
Defines the limits to maximum allowable
slenderness for the structure
The criteria are based on analytical buckling

formulas, and non stress based and cover all
structural elements
Application:
Structural elements with failure modes not covered

by the prescriptive buckling requirements or the
advanced buckling are designed to be stocky
Maximum slenderness is also given to failure modes

that are covered by the prescriptive buckling
requirements or the advanced buckling analysis
(baseline floor)
52
Buckling
Prescriptive buckling requirements
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 2
PAGE 27
Analytical formulas categorised according to
structural elements and failure modes

The buckling stress is defined for all relevant failure
modes
The prescriptive buckling requirements for plates and
stiffeners based on GL (DIN)

Application:
Assessment of the critical buckling stress for individual

structural elements (e.g. buckling of plates and pillars)
53
Buckling
Prescriptive buckling requirements
Prescriptive buckling check based on formulas of GL-rule, which

are developed based on DIN 18800
Original GL-approach uses different net-thickness approach
Stresses calculated based on gross thickness of ships

cross section
Allowable buckling stresses calculated based on netthickness of considered panels (- 50% corrosion addition)
Section modulus of ship cross section will reduce by 10% in

maximum, which gives approximately 10% increased stress
in the considered panel
Safety factor of 1.1 was introduced to cover this effect in

GL-approach
In CSR Approach stress calculation is based on netthicknesses therefore allowable usage factor is set to 1.0 in
general
54
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 2
PAGE 28
Buckling
Based on nonlinear analysis techniques
CSR rules give general requirements and
specification to:
to the advanced buckling analysis

the application
structural modelling principles
assessment criteria
Application
CSR Rules allows the use of the ultimate capacity

for certain structural elements subject to lifetime
extreme loading
55
Buckling
Covers bi-axial compression, shear stress and lateral
pressure
Physical representation
Control of ultimate capacity
The advanced buckling analysis is considered a
better representation than the prescriptive buckling

requirements
56
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 2
PAGE 29
Buckling
Advanced Buckling Software
Graphical presentation of Buckling Modes

b) Weak stiffener sideways/torsional:
High stiffener/small flange
a) Weak/thin plate - strong stiffener sideways:

thin plate/wide stiffenerflange
a) + b) effect interacting
c) Weak stiffener out-of-plane: Low stiffener

height/long span/small flange: prevented by
PULS design principles
57

.2 Strength Assessment
a) Members to be evaluated
- Covers all strength components of the vessel

b) Failure modes
- Yielding, buckling and fatigue

c) Deflections
- Hull girder inertia

- Buckling
- s/t and d/t ratios
58
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 2
PAGE 30
Members to be Evaluated
Topic
Sections
Introduction
Rule Principles
Rule Application
Basic Information
Structural Arrangement
Materials and Welding
Loads
Aft end
& Machinery Room
Topic
Sections
Machinery general structure
8/4.1
Hull girder strength
Machinery bottom structure
8/4.2
Machinery side structure

Machinery deck structure
Machinery internal structure
Fore end
Cargo Area
Sections
Topic
Topic
Sections
8/1
General structure
8/3.1
Hull envelope plating
8/2.2
Bottom structure
8/3.2
8/4.3
8/2.3
Side structure
8/3.3
8/4.4
Inner bottom
8/2.4
Deck structure
Bulkheads
8/2.5
Internal structure
8/3.5-3.9
8/4.5-4.8
8/3.4
Aft end general structure
8/5.1
8/2.6
Bottom slamming
8/6.3
Aft end bottom structure
8/5.2
Sloshing
8/6.2
Bow impact
8/6.4
Aft end shell structure
8/5.3
Aft end deck structure
8/5.4
Aft end internal structure
8/5.5-5.7
9/1
Strength assessment (FEM)
9/2
Fatigue strength
9/3
Topic
Sections
Hull openings and closing arrangements
11/1
Crew protection
11/2
Support structure and structural appendages
11/3
Equipment
11/4
Testing procedures
11/5
Ship in operation renewal criteria
12
59
Failure Modes
Principal Acceptance Criteria - Rule Requirements
Plate panels and Local
Support Members
Acceptance
criteria set
AC1:
(Static)
AC2:
(Dynamic)
AC3:
(Impact)
Yield
70-80% of
yield
stress
90-100%
of yield
stress
Plastic
criteria
Buckling
Control of
stiffness and
proportions.
Usage factor
typically 0.8
Control of
stiffness and
proportions.
Usage factor
typically 1.0
Control of
stiffness and
proportions
Primary Support
Members
Yield
70-75%
of yield
stress
85% of
yield
stress
Plastic
criteria
Buckling
Control of
stiffness and
proportions.
Pillar
buckling
Control of
stiffness and
proportions.
Pillar
buckling
Control of
stiffness and
proportions
Hull girder members
Yield
Buckling
75% of
yield
stress
NA
90-100%
of yield
stress
Usage
factor
typically
0.9
NA
NA
60
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 2
PAGE 31
Failure Modes
Principal Acceptance Criteria - Design Verification - FE Analysis
Global cargo tank analysis
Acceptance
criteria set
AC2:
(Dynamic)
Buckling
Yield
and proportions.

stress

0.8

analysis
and proportions.

stress

1.0

analysis
61
62
Deflections
Buckling Stress / Yield Stress
AC1:
(Static)
Yield
Local fine mesh analysis
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 2
PAGE 32
Deflections
Primary Support member deflection controlled by minimum

web depth requirements based on a percentage of the
unsupported span of the member
Calibrated and based on existing rules
Controls the inertia of the member
wl
wl 4
=
384 EI
63

.3 Ultimate Strength
a) Ultimate strength of the hull girder
b) Ultimate strength of plates and stiffeners
64
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 2
PAGE 33
Hull girder ultimate

strength:
Partial safety factor
Rule Format
Criterion: S M SW
+ W M WV
Reliability Analysis
MU
P f Pf , t arg et
Criterion:
Limit state:
g=Mu-MS-MW
Still water moment, MSW
Rule value, empirical

Actual loading condition
Other
- actual loading
- model uncertainty
MS distribution
Probability
Density
format
S =
S M sw + W M wv sag
M SW
MU
Calibration of safety
factors using
reliability analysis
Only sagging
M S , DP
MS, DP
MS
Wave moment, MWV
Rule value, empirical

Direct calculation
- Detailed recipe wrt. kind of
analysis, environmental
conditions, probability level etc.
Other
Probability
Density
- joint environmental model

- hydrodynamic analysis
- model uncertainty
annual extreme response
W =
M W , DP
M WV
MW, DP
MW
Moment capacity, MU
E.g. incremental iterative method

Material strength
Other
- random material
- geometrical uncertainty
- model uncertainty
capacity distribution
Probability
Density
R =
MU
M U , DP
considered
MU, DP
Mu
Safety factors, S, W, R
Design Points (DP)
65

Aim of reliability analysis calibration:
Ensure a sufficient and consistent overall safety level,
accounting for the uncertainties involved
Wave bending moment uncertainties:

Randomness and uncertainty in sea state data
Wave load prediction
Hull girder bending capacity uncertainties:
Material properties
Strength prediction
66
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 2
PAGE 34

1.70
Ultimate capacity in sagging:

quite accurately predicted
no effect of lateral pressure
no double bottom bending
model uncertainty estimated

based on comparisons with
non-linear FEM calculations
Partial safety factor
SUEZMAX gamma_SW
SUEZMAX gamma_WV
SUEZMAX gamma_R
PRODUCT gamma_SW
1.60
WAVE
1.50
1.40
1.30
1.20
CAPACITY
1.10
1.00
0.90
STILL
WATER
0.80
0.70
0.60
1.0E-02
Design load combination

A) Permissible still water bending
moment
B) Maximum bending moment for
homogenous full load condition
1.0E-03
1.0E-04
Annual Probability of Failure
1.0E-05
PRODUCT gamma_WV
PRODUCT gamma_R
VLCC 1 gamma_SW
VLCC 1 gamma_WV
VLCC 1 gamma_R
VLCC 2 gamma_SW
VLCC 2 gamma_WV
VLCC 2 gamma_R
AFRAMAX gamma_SW
AFRAMAX gamma_WV
AFRAMAX gamma_R
1.00
1.20
1.10
1.00
1.30
1.10
67

.4 Structure Compatibility
a) Purpose of the space
- Designated usage of the space is used in the CSR i.e.

density, corrosion additions (temperature, corrosive
nature), etc.
b) Structural continuity
- The CSR include extensive requirements for continuity

on both the global and local levels
68
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 2
PAGE 35

.5 Facilitate Loading/Unloading
a) Load scenarios are included in the design loads in the
CSR
b) Allowable SWBM and SWSF limits include in-port limits
.6 Net Scantlings
a) Definition proposed at MSC 82.
69
Net Scantling - Philosophy

1.
Provide a link between the assumed reduction in strength during

newbuilding strength evaluations and the in-service gauging
assessment criteria
2.
Todays in-service gauging assessment criteria covers:

Global strength corrosion
General corrosion
Local (pitting, grooving and edge) corrosion
70
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 2
PAGE 36
Net Scantling General Corrosion
General Corrosion uniform thickness reduction in mm over

an extensive area.
Design
includes link
between
newbuilding
and in-service
standards
In Service
Wastage
Allowance
Corrosion
Addition
Predicted
corrosion
in 2.5 years
(0.5 mm)
Required
Net
Thickness
Required
Renewal
Thickness
Annual
Thickness
Measurements
71
Net Scantlings - Philosophy

Existing in-service gauging criteria
Evaluations made on gross scantling
IACS proposed GBS definition

Evaluations made on net scantling
( - corrosion deducted)
( + corrosion added)
Hull girder properties permitted to reduce by

10%:

10% (same as Z net50 ):
Z measured Z renewal = 0.9 x Z gross required

General corrosion deducted from as-built:
% deduction or local simplified buckling,
whichever is less
Local corrosion:
Allowable % pitting, grooving and edge
corrosion
Field Stresses:
Based on gross scantling
Z measured Z renewal = Z net50

General corrosion added to net scantling:
Discrete margins, in millimeters, based on
surface exposure.
Local corrosion:
corrosion
Field Stresses:
Based on hull girder properties reduced by
10% ( Z net50 )
72
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 2
PAGE 37
Strength
Net Scantling - Related to Assessment Method
As built
50%
Strength evaluation
Hull girder renewals
50%
Renewal
Strength evaluation
General corrosion renewal
Time
73
Strength
As built
50%
50%
Strength evaluation
50%
50%
Renewal
Strength evaluation
Fatigue evaluation
Local properties
Time
Note: only hull girder properties, general and local corrosion have to be evaluated
during the in-service phase
74
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 2
PAGE 38
Strength
As built
25%
50%
50%
25%
Strength evaluation
Fatigue evaluation
Hull girder properties

50%
50%
Renewal
Strength evaluation
Fatigue evaluation
Local properties
Time
75
GBS Net Scantlings

Proposed definition of net scantling to use in Tier II.3:

"The net scantlings are to provide the structural strength required
to sustain the design loads, assuming the structure in intact
condition and are to be derived from newbuilding strength
evaluations linked to in-service diminution limits as follows:
.1 diminution of the hull girder section modulus is limited to not
more than ten percent (10%), corresponding global stress
calculations of the hull girder and primary support members
may be based on this general scantling reduction,
.2 individual plates and stiffening elements are to have sufficient
strength to sustain design loads excluding additions for
corrosion,
.3 fatigue calculations account for scantling variations through
the design life,
.4 highly localized pitting, grooving and edge corrosion are to be
treated separately and are typically not included in the
newbuilding evaluations.
76
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 2
PAGE 39
GBS Net Scantlings - Impact

Question: What would be the impact of using the same net

scantling for all three diminution definitions?
- Assuming that IMO and IACS retains todays 10% limit on

longitudinal strength diminution.
- Very crude estimations indicate an increase of about 6

percent in steel weight over CSR impact (does not include
fatigue impacts)
- For deck plate, if global 10% diminution governs, which is

very rare, todays as-built thickness will be tomorrows
renewal thickness
- It could be proposed that IMO and IACS increase longitudinal

strength diminution from 10% to 20% to match newbuilding
standard, but todays 10% is very rarely governing.
77
GBS Net Scantlings - Impact

Summary of over 2000 cross sections
Loss of Hull Girder Section Modulus
11%
mean
mean+stdv
10%
mean+2stdv
data
9%
HGSM Loss
(As Gauged/As Built) (%)
8%
7%
6%
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
0%
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
Ship Age
78
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 2
PAGE 40

DESIGN
II.1
Design life
II.2
II.3
Structural Strength
II.4
Fatigue life
II.5
Residual strength
II.6

II.6.1 Coating life
II.7
II.8
II.9

CONSTRUCTION
II.12 Survey
II.15 Recycling
79
II.4 Fatigue life

Technical Comments
The functional requirement is fully covered in CSR
The design S-N curve used is two standard deviations below

the mean experimental ( 50%) S-N curve (2.5% under the
curve)
The linear damage accumulation rule of Miners sum is applied

and a unit value of the damage ratio D corresponds to fatigue
cracking
The expected fatigue life is to be greater or equal to the design

life (i.e. 25 years)
The long term distribution of stresses in the structure of the ship

sailing in North-Atlantic environment is represented by a twoparameter Weibull law. The best fit of the Weibull distribution to
the North-Atlantic scatter diagram is obtained by selecting a low
probability of occurrence (10-4) for the scale parameter of the
Weibull law
80
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 2
PAGE 41
Fatigue assessment procedure in CSR for Oil Tankers
81
Fatigue Strength Assessment
Important issues related to the

Requirements
Wave-induced loads at 10-4 probability level
Vertical bending moment

Horizontal bending moment
External pressure
Internal tank pressure
Two loading conditions: full load (design draft)/normal

ballast
Net thickness concept used
Two approaches
Palmgren-Miners linear damage model

Long term stress range distribution described by Weibull
distribution
Nominal stress approach longitudinal end connections

Hot spot stress approach hopper knuckle connection
82
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 2
PAGE 42

1000
B
C
Example of Requirement
D
E
F
F2
Stress Range (MPa)
Damage model
G
W
100
10
DM = DM i 1
1.00E+04
1.00E+05
1.00E+06
1.00E+07
1.00E+08
i =1
m
S Ri
m
i N L
i ( 1 + )
DM i =
K 2 (lnN R ) m/
Fatigue life = 25/DM

83

Example of Requirement
Joint classification
R 2X/3
R 400 mm
R 300 mm
ID
max.
15 mm
Connection type
Critical Locations
A
B
max. 15 mm
min. X/2
min. 300 mm
leff
leff
F2
F2
F2
F2
(see note iv)
F2
leff
leff
100R
30
leff
30R
leff
3
15
d/2
84
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 2
PAGE 43

Comparison with current fatigue
rules
75
Lower range - existing N.A.

Upper range - existing N.A.
JTP proposed Weibull
IACS proposed Weibull
Life
50
25
Product Carrier
Product Carrier
Product Carrier
Aframax
Product Carrier
Aframax
Aframax
Aframax
Aframax
Aframax
Suezmax
Suezmax
Suezmax
Suezmax
Suezmax
Suezmax
Suezmax
VLCC2
Suezmax
VLCC2
VLCC2
VLCC2
VLCC2
VLCC2
VLCC2
VLCC2
VLCC1
VLCC1
VLCC1
VLCC1
VLCC1
VLCC1
85

DESIGN
II.1
Design life
II.2
II.3
Structural Strength
II.4
Fatigue life
II.5
Residual strength
II.6

II.6.1 Coating life
II.7
II.8
II.9

CONSTRUCTION
II.12 Survey
II.15 Recycling
86
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 2
PAGE 44

Technical Comments
The functional requirement is partially covered by CSR
Implicitly covered, based on experience from existing ships

upon which the rules were calibrated
Flooding is included as an accidental load, but only the effect of

local pressure is checked
Effect of flooding on global strength is not covered
Structural damage due to collision or grounding not considered
Not explicitly covered, since the rule requirements only consider

intact structure
Post-buckling behaviour is included in hull girder check, but only

for intact structure
Studies have indicated that damage condition is not
dimensioning for double hull oil tankers
87

Extent of structural damage
to consider
1.00
Should be based on statistical data

from reported collision and
grounding damages
IMO damage database

EU-project HARDER
0.90
Cumulative Probability
Probability Distribution of Damage Length

Harder Project, 542 Collision Cases
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.00
Damage assumptions made

for oil outflow analysis in
MARPOL
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
Damage Length, l d /L
Probability Distribution of Damage Heigth

Harder Project, 460 Collision Cases
Need to select damage probability

level
Need to select probability level for
environmental loads in damaged
condition
Requirements should be calibrated
against existing designs
1.00
0.90
Cumulative Probability
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
Damage Heigth, h/L
88
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 2
PAGE 45

Individual class Rules contain criteria for structural damage
extent, but not placed in CSR yet
Samples:
Class notation CSA-2
Class notation RES
Collision damage:
Grounding damage:
89

DESIGN
II.1
Design life
II.2
II.3
Structural Strength
II.4
Fatigue life
II.5
Residual strength
II.6

II.6.1 Coating life
II.7
II.8
II.9

CONSTRUCTION
II.12 Survey
II.15 Recycling
90
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 2
PAGE 46
Technical Comments
Present Description of GBS
Measures to protect against corrosion are to be applied to

ensure that net scantlings required to meet structural strength
provisions are maintained throughout the specified design life.
Additional measures include, but are not limited to, coatings,

cathodic protection, impressed current systems, etc.
II.6 consists of following two sub-functions
II.6.1 Coating life

The above pertain to providing protection against corrosion

or anticipating corrosion in the strength calculations.
The overall goal: Required scantlings meet the intended

strength provisions throughout the specified design life.
91
II.6.1 Coating life
Technical Comments
Present Description of GBS:

Coatings should be applied and maintained in accordance
with manufacturers specifications concerning surface
preparation, coating selection, application and maintenance.
Where coating is required to be applied, the design coating

life is to be specified.
The actual coating life may be longer or shorter than the

design coating life, depending on the actual conditions and
maintenance of the ship.
Coatings should be selected as a function of the intended

use of the compartment, materials and application of other
corrosion prevention systems, e.g. cathodic protection or
other alternatives.
92
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 2
PAGE 47

II.6.1 Coating life
Technical Comments (continued)
Coating Requirements of IMO
the requirements of SOLAS Reg. II-1/3-2, IMO Resolution

A.798(19) and IACS UI SC 122.
Amendments of SOLAS Regulation II-1/3-2, IMO Resolution

MSC.216(82)
IMO performance standard - Performance standard for

protective coatings for dedicated seawater ballast tanks in all
types of ships and double-side skin spaces of bulk carriers,
IMO Resolution MSC.215(82)
CSR: Reference o the IMO instruments to ensure that the Rules

are inline with the SOLAS requirement with respect to corrosion
prevention of ballast tanks
CSR: Early implementation of IMO performance standard for ships

contracted for construction on or after 8 December 2006
93

II.6.1 Coating life
Verification
Functional Requirements II.6.1 Coating Life has

been/will be covered by IMO mandatory instruments
such as PSPC
The referenced requirements such as SOLAS Reg. II1/3-2 cover the following items related to information
and documentation for II.6.
.1 Locations and/or spaces where coatings are required to be
used
.2 Types of coating to be used for the various spaces
.3 Reference coating performance standards
To verify if all the necessary IMO mandatory

instruments are properly referred to
94
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 2
PAGE 48

1. Basic Concept
Net Scantling Concept
2. Stochastic Corrosion Propagation Model
3. Statistical processing of thickness
measurements data
4. Example of Corrosion Addition
95
1. Basic Concept of Corrosion Addition
General philosophy for establishing

corrosion additions
(a) based, in general, on the premise that todays practice
is a reference point, and departures from todays
practice will need to be backed-up with technical
justification;
(b) established based on the basic assumption of coatings
provided (where required) at time of newbuilding,
(c) appropriate for a 25-year service life;
(d) based on absolute numbers, i.e., 4.0mm (not 25%);
(e) independent of type of local failure mode employed, i.e.,
yielding, buckling, or fatigue;
(f) based on published data and recent experience of IACS
member societies;
96
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 2
PAGE 49
1. Basic Concept of Corrosion Addition

Adoption of Net Scantling Concept
Corrosion additions should be completely consistent

with wastage allowances
Corrosion addition = Wastage Allowance + 0.5mm

Note: The 0.5mm is added in reserve for the wastage
occurring between the inspection intervals of
approximately 2.5 years
Based on the stochastic corrosion propagation model
and data on record of gauging, etc.

A extra margin in some areas of the structure was
added to account for the variability of corrosion based

on service experience.
97
Adoption of Net Scantling Concept

- Measures to deal with General Corrosion General Corrosion uniform thickness diminution/reduction
in mm over an extensive area.
Design
includes link
between
newbuilding
and in-service
standards
Wastage
Allowance
Corrosion
Addition
Required
Net
Thickness
In Service
Predicted
corrosion
in 2.5 years
(0.5 mm)
Required
Renewal
Thickness
Annual
Thickness
Measurements
98
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 2
PAGE 50
2. Stochastic Corrosion Propagation Model

Contents of Explanation of Stochastic Corrosion
Propagation Model
1.
Evaluation of Generation and Progress of Corrosion
Corrosion Rate Approach

Stochastic Corrosion Propagation Model
2.
Concept of Flexible Probabilistic Corrosion Model
3.
Consideration on General Corrosion Propagation
4.
Example of Evaluated Behaviors
5.
Illustration of state of corrosion simulated by the

corrosion model
99
Evaluation of Generation and Progress of

Corrosion
0.5
0.4
10 years
0.3
0.2
15 years
0.3
Frequency
Frequency
Frequency
0.4
0.2
0.1
0.1
0
0.3
5 years
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Annual Corrosion Rate (mm/year)
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.7
20 years
0.2
0.1
25 years
0.6
0.3
Frequency
Frequency
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.4
0.2
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Annual corrosion rates scatter widely.

Actual corrosion generation and progress cannot be
explained by the annual corrosion rates.
100
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 2
PAGE 51
Evaluation of Generation and Progress of

Corrosion
Starts
Depth of Corrosion
Intact Condition
Elapsed Time
First it progresses
depth-wise
Annual Wastage Rate

Usual method of getting corrosion
rate using linear line
Then it spreads
Actual corrosion generation and progress

cannot be explained by the annual
corrosion rates.
101
Concept of
Flexible Probabilistic Corrosion Model
Distribution for effectiveness of paint
coatings
PD
Transition to pitting points

from active pitting points
Time
PD
Generation of active
pitting points
Distribution of transition time

Time
Progress of pitting points
Corrosion depth
Time
Probability Density
Distribution of corrosion depth
Corrosion depth
102
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 2
PAGE 52
Concept of
coatings
PD
Time

PD
pitting points

Time
Corrosion depth
Time
Probability Density
Corrosion depth
103
Concept of
coatings
PD

Time
PD
pitting points

Time
Corrosion depth
Time
Probability Density
Corrosion depth
Variety of corrosion progress patterns can be described by the

probabilistic corrosion model.
104
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 2
PAGE 53
a special case

coatings
Time
PD
pitting points
PD
Concept of

Time
Corrosion depth
Time
Probability Density
Corrosion depth
105
a special case

coatings
Time
PD
pitting points
PD
Concept of

Time
Corrosion depth
Time
Probability Density
The probabilistic corrosion model

can describe
Corrosion
depth the corrosion
diminution behavior, even if thickness diminishes at the constant
rate from the beginning of the service.
106
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 2
PAGE 54
PD
Concept of
pitting points

coatings
Time
PD
a special case

Time
Corrosion depth
Time
Probability Density
Corrosion depth
The probabilistic corrosion model can describe the corrosion

diminution behavior, even if diminution develops
exponentially.
IMO Pilot Project
Meeting - 12 March 2007
107
Concept of
coatings
PD
Time
PD
pitting points
Parameters
were
based
on
Parametersininthe
thecorrosion
corrosionmodel
model
weredetermined
determined
based
onthe
theactual
actual
Distribution
of transition
time
thickness
measurement
data.
Transition
to
pitting
points
thickness measurement data.
Time
ItItturns
out
from active
pitting
points
turns
outthat
that
Time
Probability Density
period
periodofofno
nocorrosion
corrosionexists,
exists,
Corrosion depth
annual
annualcorrosion
corrosionrates
ratesare
areNOT
NOTconstant
constantand
and
diminution
does
NOT
develop
exponentially.
diminution does NOT develop exponentially.
Corrosion depth
108
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 2
PAGE 55
Consideration on
General Corrosion Propagation
Parameters
Parametersininthe
thecorrosion
corrosionmodel
modelwere
weredetermined
determinedbased
basedon
onthe
theactual
actual
thickness
measurement
data.
thickness measurement data.
ItItturns
turnsout
outthat,
that,inincase
caseofofGENERAL
GENERALCORROSION,
CORROSION,i.e.
i.e. uniform
uniformthickness
thickness
diminution/reduction
diminution/reductionover
overan
anextensive
extensivearea,
area,
period
periodofofno
nocorrosion
corrosionexists,
exists,
annual
annualcorrosion
corrosionrates
ratesare
areNOT
NOTconstant
constantand
and
diminution
diminutiondoes
doesNOT
NOTdevelop
developexponentially.
exponentially.
Diminution
Trend of actual corrosion behavior
Such a line does NOT reflect

the actual corrosion behavior
Time
109
Example of Evaluated Behaviors

4
Pitting Intensity (%)
Diminution (mm)
95%
3
Average
2
Frequency
distribution
at 25 years
0
25
50
75
100
0
10
15
20
25
30
at 20 years
at 15 years
10
15
20
Age (Year)
Pitting Intensity: Ratio of the corroded

surface area to the entire surface area
25
30
at 10 years
at 5 years
110
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 2
PAGE 56
Illustration of state of corrosion simulated

by the corrosion model
5 years
15 years
20 years
10 years
25 years
111
3. Statistical Processing of Thickness

Measurements Data
To collect thickness measurements data
To transfer the data to electronic form
To categorize the electronic data on the basis of
exposure to corrosive agents such as water, cargo

or corrosive atmosphere, and
whether the structure is protected by corrosion
prevention systems, e.g. coating, cathodic
protection
To store data into the structured DATABSE
To estimate thickness diminution due to general
corrosion by Statistical Analysis according to the
Categorization and the corrosion propagation model
To determine corrosion addition values for one side
of plates based on the categorization
112
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 2
PAGE 57

Measurements Data
To store data into the structured DATABSE

Number of Gauging Report: over 500
Number of Data: about 600,000
113

Measurements Data
114
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 2
PAGE 58
115
4. Example of Corrosion Addition

- Measures to deal with General Corrosion -
116
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 2
PAGE 59

DESIGN
II.1
Design life
II.2
II.3
Structural Strength
II.4
Fatigue life
II.5
Residual strength
II.6

II.6.1 Coating life
II.7
II.8
II.9

CONSTRUCTION
II.12 Survey
II.15 Recycling
117

Technical Comments
The functional requirement is partially covered by CSR
No explicit requirements to structural redundancy
Implicitly covered through:
Inherent redundancy of stiffened panels
Inherent redundancy of double hull tankers
Criticality class considerations made during the rule
development
Advanced buckling methods used for strength

assessment of stiffened panels
118
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 2
PAGE 60

Criticality class:
LOCAL
PRIMARY
MAJOR
GLOBAL
1.1
Deck panel
L
1.1.1
1.1.2
Deck plate
Deck long.
P
Deck
Criticality of each
structural element
1.2 & 1.3

Deck girders
L
Acceptance criteria
according to criticality
2
Double bottom
L
Less critical elements

fail first
2.1.1
L
2.2.1
Btm. shell long.

E
Inner btm. plate

L
Btm. shell plate

L
2.3.2 & 2.4.2
Btm. girder web
3.1
Inner side panel
0
Hull girder
2.2.2
2.3 & 2.4

Bottom girders
E
2.1.2
Inner btm long.
2.2
Btm. shell panel
Deck girder web
2.1
Inner btm. panel
L
1.2.2 & 1.3.2
3.1.1
3.1.2
Inner side long.

L
Inner side plate

L
3
Double side
L
3.2
Side shell panel
3.2.1
3.2.2
Side shell long.

E
3.3 & 3.4

Side girders
L
3.3.2 & 3.4.2
Side girder web
4.1
Long. bhd. panel
Side shell plate
4.1.1
4.1.2
Long. bhd. long.

L
Long. bhd. plate

L
Long. bulkhead
L
4.2
L. bhd. girders
4.2.2
Criticality
color code:
Low
5.1
Tr. bhd. panel
L
Lbhd. girder web
5.1.1
5.1.2
Tr. bhd. stiff.

L
Tr. bhd. plate

L
Tr. bulkhead
L
Medium
High
5.2
Tr. bhd. girders
L
5.2.2
Tbhd. girder web

L
119

Advanced buckling methods:
Elastic buckling of plates allowed
Stiffeners required to sustain the redistributed load
Gives redundant panels
120
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 2
PAGE 61

Exception:
Corrugated bulkheads do generally not have the
same redundancy as stiffened panels
121

DESIGN
II.1
Design life
II.2
II.3
Structural Strength
II.4
Fatigue life
II.5
Residual strength
II.6

II.6.1 Coating life
II.7
II.8
II.9

CONSTRUCTION
II.12 Survey
II.15 Recycling
122
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 2
PAGE 62
II.8 Watertight and Weatherthight Intergrity
Technical Comments
Subdivision of ship and tank size influenced by
- floodability and damage stability (SOLAS,ICLL)
- oil-outflow restrictions (MARPOL)
Hull opening and closing arrangements regulated by ICLL

and SOLAS requirements
Strength requirements of opening and closing

arrangements given in ICLL and URS 26 and URS 27
(fore deck) used as basis for CSR
123
II.8 Watertight and Weatherthight Intergrity
Technical Comments (cont.)

Scantlings of watertight boundaries defined under
consideration of
International conventions and rules, IACS URS, if

appropriate
Static and dynamic loads of loading conditions

(combined global and local loads) and flooding
conditions, if appropriate
124
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 2
PAGE 63

DESIGN
II.1
Design life
II.2
II.3
Structural Strength
II.4
Fatigue life
II.5
Residual strength
II.6

II.6.1 Coating life
II.7
II.8
II.9

CONSTRUCTION
II.12 Survey
II.15 Recycling
125
II.9 Human Element Considerations

1. Technical Comments
In classification point of view related only to sufficient

space and accessibility for safe inspection/survey,
maintenance, repair and rescue operations
Some specific requirements regarding the protection of

crew members are included in ICLL 1966 and UI LL14 of
IACS (e.g. guard rails)
requirements related to accidental protection and

ergonomics defined in national regulations and Tier V
standards
It is the responsibility of the owner/designer/builder to

ensure that regulations of international, national, canal
and other authorities which may affect structural aspects
are considered
126
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 2
PAGE 64

DESIGN
II.1
Design life
II.2
II.3
Structural Strength
II.4
Fatigue life
II.5
Residual strength
II.6

II.6.1 Coating life
II.7
II.8
II.9

CONSTRUCTION
II.12 Survey
II.15 Recycling
127
III.10 Design transparency

Technical comments
The builder is responsible for providing design documentation according

to requirements specified in the Rules
Quality systems are applied to the design, construction, operation and
maintenance activities to assist compliance with the requirements of the
Rules.
it is the responsibility of the owner to specify the intended use of the

ship, and the responsibility of the builder to ensure that the operational
capability of the design fulfils the owners requirements as well as the
structural requirements given in the Rules
the builder shall identify and document the operational limits for the ship
so that the ship can be safely and efficiently operated within these limits
verification of the design is performed by the builder to check

compliance with provisions contained in the Rules in addition to national
and international regulations
the design is performed by appropriately qualified, competent and

experienced personnel
the classification society is responsible for a technical review and audit

of the design plans and related documents for a ship to verify
compliance with the appropriate classification rules.
128
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 2
PAGE 65
III.10 Design transparency

Technical comments
The alternative arrangements are considered on the basis of
equivalency.
Information is be submitted to demonstrate that the

structural safety of the novel design is at least equivalent to
that intended by the Rules.
Dependent on the nature of the deviation, a systematic review

may be required to document equivalence with the Rules.
Alternative calculation methods may be accepted provided

it is demonstrated that the scantlings and arrangements are
of at least equivalent strength to those derived using the
Rule calculation method.
Ship Construction File

IMO is yet to defined the contents of the File
IACS UR Z23 already does
129

DESIGN
II.1
Design life
II.2
II.3
Structural Strength
II.4
Fatigue life
II.5
Residual strength
II.6

II.6.1 Coating life
II.7
II.8
II.9

CONSTRUCTION
II.12 Survey
II.15 Recycling
130
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 2
PAGE 66
III.11 Construction quality procedures

Technical comments: The Rules and UR Z23 state:
the builder is responsible for ensuring that adequate supervision and

quality control is provided during the construction
construction is to be carried out by qualified and experienced

personnel
workmanship, including alignment and tolerances, is to be in

accordance with acceptable shipbuilding standards
the Classification Society is responsible for auditing to verify that the

construction and quality control are in accordance with the plans and
procedures
shipbuilding quality standards for the hull structure during new

construction are to be reviewed and agreed during the kick-off
meeting between the builder and class
the structural fabrication is to be carried out, in accordance with

IACS Rec. 47 or a recognised fabrication standard accepted by the
Classification Society
131

Technical comments: The Rules and UR Z23
statecont...:
additional attention is paid during construction and repair of critical areas of

the structure
the meeting prior to commencing any newbuilding project to assess the

degree of compliance of the shipyard with the items in Table 1 of UR Z23
provides a list of surveyable items in Table 1 for the hull structure covered by
UR Z23
increased inspection requirements are deemed necessary as a result of a

substantial non-conformance
the builder is to be requested to agree to suspend relevant construction

activities if warranted by the severity of the problem under investigation,
which was discovered during the construction process.
132
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 2
PAGE 67

Question:
How does a classification society determine that a shipyard is
qualified to construct a vessel to its Rules?
133

Answer:
UR Z23:
6. Review of the construction facility*

6.1 The society is to review the construction facilities prior to any
steelwork or construction taking place in the following
circumstances:
6.1.1 where the society has none or no recent experience of the
construction facilities typically after a one year lapse - or when
significant new infrastructure has been added,
6.1.2 where there has been a significant management or
personnel re-structuring having an impact on the ship
construction process,
6.1.3 or where the shipbuilder contracts to construct a vessel of a
different type or substantially different in design.
*Footnote: Reference is made to Appendix 1 Shipyard review
record, as an example.
134
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 2
PAGE 68

Answer:
UR Z23:
7.1 Prior to commencing any newbuilding project, the society is
to discuss with the shipbuilder at a kick off meeting the items
listed in Table 1. The purpose of the meeting is to agree how the
list of specific activities shown in Table 1 is to be addressed
135

Answer:
UR Z23:
9. Proof of the consistency of surveys
9.1 The classification society is to be able to provide evidence,
e.g. through records, check lists, inspection and test records, etc.
that its surveyors have complied with the requirements of the
newbuilding survey planning and duly participated in the relevant
activities shown in the shipbuilders examination and test plans.
9.2 For audit purposes, the information specified in 9.1 is to be
made available.
136
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 2
PAGE 69

DESIGN
II.1
Design life
II.2
II.3
Structural Strength
II.4
Fatigue life
II.5
Residual strength
II.6

II.6.1 Coating life
II.7
II.8
II.9

CONSTRUCTION
II.12 Survey
II.15 Recycling
137
III.12 Survey
Technical comments:
UR Z23 states:
Prior to commencing any newbuilding project, the society is to

discuss with the shipbuilder at a kick off meeting the items listed in
Table 1.
The purpose of the meeting is to agree how the list of specific

activities shown in Table 1 is to be addressed.
The meeting is to take into account the shipbuilders construction

facilities and ship type and deal with sub-contractors.
The shipyard is to be informed of likely intervals for sampling and

patrol activities.
A record of the meeting is to be made, based upon the contents of

the Table
The record of the meeting is to be updated as the construction

process progresses in the light of changing circumstances
The builder is to be asked to agree to undertake ad hoc

investigations during construction where areas of concern arise and
for the builder to agree to keep the classification society advised of
the progress of any investigation.
138
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 2
PAGE 70

DESIGN
II.1
Design life
II.2
II.3
Structural Strength
II.4
Fatigue life
II.5
Residual strength
II.6

II.6.1 Coating life
II.7
II.8
II.9

CONSTRUCTION
II.12 Survey
II.15 Recycling
139

Technical Comments
First part of this requirement covered by II.9 Human
element (accessibility)
Reference to UR Z10.4 for thickness measurements

Renewal limit for steel structure parts defined based on
net-thickness concept
CSR do not include requirements with respect to survey

related to the verification of compliance with the rules
during construction and operation
Owners are responsible for maintaining the ship and the

individual classification societies verify the compliance
with the class requirements in accordance with the
classification society survey scheme
140
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 2
PAGE 71

Technical Comments (cont.)
Extent and frequency of Survey for double hull oil tankers
defined in UR Z10.4
Extent of survey dependent of structure to be surveyed,

coating condition and age of the ship
Introduction of criteria for planning survey and

maintenance for ship-in-service to be discussed
(identification and consideration of areas that need
special attention) In general this is committed to the
surveyors / societies experience
141

DESIGN
II.1
Design life
II.2
II.3
Structural Strength
II.4
Fatigue life
II.5
Residual strength
II.6

II.6.1 Coating life
II.7
II.8
II.9

CONSTRUCTION
II.12 Survey
II.15 Recycling
142
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 2
PAGE 72

1. Technical Comments
CSR for oil tankers refer to SOLAS Ch II-1, Part A-1,

regulation 3-6, and the checking is mainly a
statutory matter
with a direct reference in CSR for oil tankers Sec 5

[5]
2. Additional Criteria
CSR for oil tankers add requirements for access to
specific areas: duct keel and pipe tunnel.
143

DESIGN
II.1
Design life
II.2
II.3
Structural Strength
II.4
Fatigue life
II.5
Residual strength
II.6

II.6.1 Coating life
II.7
II.8
II.9

CONSTRUCTION
II.12 Survey
II.15 Recycling
144
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 2
PAGE 73
II.15 Recycling
Technical Comments
Recycling not in scope of class rules
Convention on Safe and Environmentally Sound
Recycling of Ships under development at MEPC
145
Thank you
CSR Aim:
To develop a set of unified Rules and Procedures for
the determination of the structural requirements for
oil tankers and bulk carriers
146
***
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 3
IMO Pilot Panel Questions to IACS for March 12 Meeting
General:
1) IACS maintains a series of Unified Requirements that apply to all their member
societies. It would seem that these requirements have been decided and agreed by a
large portion of the industry and as such these should probably qualify as Tier II
requirements. We would appreciate a comment from IACS as to whether they agree.
Ans: IACS URs are proprietary documents of the International Association of
Classification Societies and do not have application outside IACS. The URs
are not associated with an IACS class, instead it is a requirement of
membership that the URs be introduced into Members individual Rules.
Classification is not assigned to a ship based on application of UR(s), only
classification Rules of an individual Member can be applied to a design. The
Tier II requirements of GBS are requirements for rulemaking and define which
topics have to be covered in the appropriate rules to fulfill or reach the goal of
Tier I of GBS. Therefore while some of the URs are elements of Tier VI of
GBS, they will actually be covered within the process of accepting the
individual rules under GBS.
2) The developing status of rule programs of IACS members to be summarized and
explained to the pilot panel members if possible with case studies since CSR rules for
Tankers and Bulk Carriers came into force on 1st Apr. 2006. Countermeasures should
be provided. For example, if nonconformity caused by the misunderstanding,
misinterpretation and human errors in programming of rule appears between IACS
members it should be immediately clarified and corrected. Considering the actual ship
design contracted based on CSR, it will become very urgent and critical situation to
shipyards.
Ans: IACS anticipated issues and difficulties related to the application of the CSR,
which is a first joint rule development on such a large scale, and consequently
implemented a set of measures to cope with their implementation. This
includes extensive maintenance, maintaining a question and answer database as
well as an interpretation database. This system is used to document application
issues and provide immediate clarification when issues arise as well as during
subsequent rule development activities.
While this is an interesting question and we believe that IACS has a system in
place to address these issues, it is our understanding that GBS deals mainly
with the development of the rule requirements and not with implementation
perse.
3) Please clarify what extent IACS CSR for Tankers covers the requirements of Tier II.
We recognize that IACS CSR does not cover all the requirements of Tier II of GBS.
Ans: Correct. Not all requirements of Tier II of GBS are classification items
therefore not all requirements are covered by the IACS CSR. A table of
7 March 2007
Page 1
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 3
PAGE 2
covered requirements is given at the beginning of the presentation (slide 3 and

4). Therefore as part of Tier III we need a clarification on how to address GBS
topics that are covered by IMO regulations or industry standard and not in the
Class rules.
Tier II.1:
4) Recognizing that Tier I contains the clause "...when properly operated and
maintained..." We would like to see a comment from IACS as to their expectation,
relative to their societies' rules, for the role that in-service survey and maintenance
plays in achieving the design service life of a vessel. We would also appreciate a
summary description of the inspection regime for tankers particularly as it relates to
increasing frequency and intensity of survey as a vessel ages.
Ans: The expectation is that a ship is to be maintained in good condition in
accordance the Classification Society survey scheme and also with
international and national regulations and requirements. In addition the
operations personnel are to be provided with sufficient training such that the
ship is properly handled to ensure that the loads and resulting stresses imposed
on the structure are minimized, or, certainly that the structure is not
overstressed. The survey inspection scheme generally requires more frequent
and increased scope of surveys as the vessels become older, please refer to the
IACS UR Z10.2, 10.4 and 10.5 which may be obtained from www.iacs.org.uk .
Tier II.2:
5) What is the basis of design life of oil tankers in relation to sea state conditions in Tier
I?
Ans: The North Atlantic wave environment is represented by a wave scatter diagram
that gives the probability of each sea state as the number of occurrences per
100,000 observations. Using the scatter diagram, the long-term value of the
load is obtained as the most probable largest value occurring with a certain
return period. The return period of the load is taken as equal to the design life
of 25 years. The probability level for the design load is then 1/N, where N is
number of load cycles during the design life. The actual number of wave load
cycles for a certain ship will depend on the ship size, speed and port time. The
number of wave load cycles corresponding to a design life of 25 years is
assumed constant and equal to 108. Previously, this value was assumed to
represent 20 years, but it is found to be more representative for 25 years. The
difference in load magnitude between loads based on a 25 year and a 20 year
return period is small. For example; if the 10-8 probability level relates exactly
to a 25 year return period, then corresponding 20 year return period would be
given at a probability level of 10-7.9, assuming that the long-term distribution of
the load can be represented by a Weibull distribution with a shape parameter
equal to 1.0. The corresponding difference in actual load value is
approximately 1%.
7 March 2007
Page 2
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 3
PAGE 3
6) With respect to rouge and/or steep waves, what is IACS opinion of the state-of-theart and how these are treated/should be treated in the rules?
Ans: The effect of steep/rogue waves is presently not covered by CSR or other class
requirements. There has been several research projects carried out in recent
years on the topic, such as the EU project MAXWAVE. Among the findings
from this research are that steep waves can have an important effect on ships,
and that such waves seem to occur more frequently than previously assumed.
The load categories that are particularly affected by steep waves are bow and
bottom slamming, green water loads on deck, and superstructure impact.
Despite the efforts made so far, it is considered that more work is needed
before class requirements on steep waves can be formulated. There has not yet
been agreement on a definition of steep waves, and there exist different
theories for the physical explanation of the phenomenon, such as wave-current
interaction, combined seas, and wave energy focusing. There are at the
moment ongoing and planned research projects that will investigate the
unresolved issues. Especially, it is important to obtain more information on the
probability of occurrence (a statistical model), the spatial and time
representation of steep waves (a wave model), and the structural response
under the action of such waves (numerical load analysis). Also, a better
physical understanding of the phenomenon is desirable.
When the above issues have been resolved, requirements for consideration of
steep waves could be formulated in the rules. It would be natural to treat such
abnormal loads as an ALS (accidental limit state) condition, meaning that
reduced safety factors can be accepted.
7) In IACS Documentation Package (Para II.1 - Design life and II-2 -Environmental
loads) it is mentioned that in CSR the "characteristic value of loads in ultimate
strength" are based on a probability of exceedance of 10-8. However, the probability
that a largest peak value may exceed the probable extreme value is quite large and
hence it is not seems appropriate to use this value for engineering purpose since that it
is known that in a perfectly narrow-banded process the probability that the
characteristic value calculated for 10-8 exceedance is 63.2%. For purposes of
structural design we must obtain an extreme value for which the probability of being
exceeded is some acceptably small value (typically 0.01). We would appreciate
additional comments regarding this issue from IACS including the considerations
adopted for the non-linear effects in maximum loads.
Ans: In principle, any value can be used as the characteristic load, since the safety
factors will be adjusted accordingly to achieve the overall target safety level.
The use of the most probable largest value of the load is a practical approach,
because this value can easily be determined from the long-term load
distribution for any return period, and does not require knowledge about the
probability distribution for the load corresponding to the design life. Assuming
7 March 2007
Page 3
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 3
PAGE 4
that the surface elevation can be described by a narrow-banded Gaussian

process, the extreme load can be described by a Gumbel probability function.
For a Gumbel distribution, there is a 63.2% probability of exceeding the most
probable largest value. However, for large number of occurences the Gumbel
distribution becomes narrow, meaning that the difference between the most
probable largest value and for instance the value with 1% probability of
exceedance becomes smaller.
Whichever value is used as the characteristic load, the acceptance criteria need
to be calibrated to achieve the overall target reliability. The difference between
the most probable largest value and the value with a small probability of
exceedance will therefore be accounted for in the safety margins. For the hull
girder strength criteria, the partial safety factors have been calibrated using
reliability analysis, with the actual probability distribution of the loads used as
input to the calibration. This means that the end result should be the same,
whether the characteristic load is taken as the most probable largest value or a
value with a small probability of exceedance.
Tier II.3:
8) Provide information to justify the following:
a) Values of the Usage factors introduced in the assessment of acceptability
against buckling failure.
b) Relevance of the parameter Depth-to-thickness ratio to control the deflection.
c) Data showing that the method used to evaluate the maximum local stresses on the
stiffeners is adequate to cover all the common arrangements and its accuracy.
Ans: Thank you for this general question. This was covered during the PP meeting,
please refer to the IACS presentation slide pages 35 to 63.
9) The ultimate strength requirement in the CSR calls for a 1.2 partial safety factor to be
applied against the wave bending moment, and a 1.1 partial safety factor against the
hull girder structural capacity. This results in an overall "safety factor" of approx.
1.2, which seems reasonable and represents a substantial enhancement over some of
the double hull tankers built to pre-CSR rules. However, the 1.2 factor applied on the
wave bending moment seems disproportionate compared to the 1.1 factor on capacity.
We would expect a greater confidence level in projecting wave bending moments
than computing hull girder structural capacity. With regard to long term distribution
of wave bending moments -- its rather narrow banded and our experience is that
increasing to 40 or 50 year life only increases the wave bending moments by a few
percent.
Ans: The partial safety factors specified for the ultimate hull girder strength check
are calibrated using reliability analysis. The aim of the calibration is to ensure a
sufficient and consistent overall safety level for all ships, accounting for the
uncertainties and randomness related to the calculation of load and strength.
For the wave bending moment, the uncertainties accounted for are the
randomness and uncertainty in the sea state data, and uncertainties related to
7 March 2007
Page 4
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 3
PAGE 5
the wave load prediction. For the hull girder bending capacity, the randomness
and uncertainty in the material properties and the uncertainties related to the
capacity model are accounted for.
The characteristic value of the wave bending moment is calculated as the most
probable largest value, while the characteristic value of the hull girder capacity
is based on minimum values of the material strength. Also, it is found that the
estimation of hull girder capacity in the sagging condition is quite accurate,
since the collapse in sagging takes place in the deck. This means that the
loading in the deck panels is uni-axial, in contrast to bottom failure, where the
effect of lateral pressure and double bottom bending must be accounted for.
Due to these effects, a larger safety factor is needed for the wave bending
moment than for the hull girder strength.
The calibration process carried out for the partial safety factors is described in
detail in Section 9.1 of the Background Documentation to the CSR.
10) The CSR does not require analysis to demonstrate that suitable continuity is applied
at the ends of the cargo block, and other areas of discontinuity in the hull girder
primary structure. Rather, it has statements such as "... due consideration is to be
given to the arrangement of major longitudinal members in order to avoid abrupt
changes in section" and "... due consideration is to be given to the tapering of primary
support members". Please explain why IACS is comfortable that a global ship FEA
or at least local FEA in way of transitions is not needed. It would be very helpful if
IACS could provide examples of acceptable and unacceptable levels of transition for,
say, a representative AFRAMAX tanker.
Ans: The objective of the structural continuity requirements is to avoid hard spots,
notches and stress concentrations in the structure. Requirements for large hull
girder longitudinal members as well as for the end termination of primary and
local members are included in the CSR. These general requirements have been
in the rules for many years with satisfactory result. One of the reasons we did
not include sample figures in the CSR, is due to extensive feedback requesting
us not to do so, many designers feel that if a sample is given it becomes a
quasi-requirement and thereby limits their flexibility. For the sake of the PP we
can provide such an example.
11) With respect to Tier III.3, the focus in our discussion so far has tended to be on
bending moment with little discussion of shear force. We would appreciate a
comment from IACS as to how shear should be treated within this Tier.
Ans: While the GBS may be concentrating on bending moments, all class rules
including the CSR, include extensive requirements for the evaluation of shear
forces.
12) In the GBS Correspondence Group documentation, there is much discussion of
'excessive deflection' and 'limits of deformation' yet we are not aware of any specific
rules. Deflections seem to be controlled by scantlings, aspect ratio control, and
7 March 2007
Page 5
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 3
PAGE 6
section modulus requirements. However, IACS uses both terms in their alternative
proposal. We would appreciate a comment from IACS as to how
deflection/deformation is handled in their rules.
Ans: This was covered during the PP meeting, please refer to the IACS presentation
slide pages 52 to 63.
13) Also in the CG correspondence and in our discussions, there appears to be varying
interpretations and perhaps disagreement as to what is meant by 'net scantlings'.
IACS has provided their presentation on 'GBS Net Scantlings' and on slide 14 have
proposed a definition. The definition presumes three different levels of scantling
reduction (hull girder, local, and fatigue) but unfortunately the ppt slides do not
contain a justification for this approach. We request that IACS provide a summary
justification. Should IMO decide that the same net scantling margin be used for all
three (hull girder, local and fatigue), what would be the impact on hull design/steel
weight?
Ans: The justification for the two levels hull girder and local is that they represent,
and are directly linked, to the gauging thickness measurements used in-service
as of today as required by the rules and SOLAS. The fatigue level simply
averages the condition half way between the newbuilding condition and the
minimum permissible renewal condition, since fatigue is a time-dependent
phenomenon that will span both conditions of the vessel. Should IMO decide
to use a simplified pure net definition for newbuilding scantling
determination but retain the current two levels for hull girder and local
thickness measurements, the impact would be that the steel weight would be
increased by roughly 6 percent. (Note, this study was later expanded and
results ranged from 3.65% to 7.8%.) The difference mainly being that current
thickness measurement allowables associated with the hull girder permits a
10% reduction in section modulus which has been used for about the last 30
years and as shown in slide page 78 is rarely governing, and the pure net
definition would require about 20% margin be built in. See slide pages 70 to
78.
Tier II.4:
14) Regarding Tier II.4 Fatigue Life, there are different acceptable methodologies to
carry out fatigue life calculations, and methodologies used in CSR for tankers and
bulk carriers differ. However what is important is that the different methodologies
used, assuming similar basic inputs, would give similar results. Has IACS carried out
any comparisons of the two methods and identified any significant differences in
results? Have the fatigue life methodologies been calibrated or benchmarked against
experimental test data or full scale ship damage data?
Ans: The two methodologies have been checked and give similar results given the
same application parameters. The area of fatigue is a very complex one and
the two project teams that originally developed the rules used two different
approaches that happen to fit the individual application parameters for the
7 March 2007
Page 6
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 3
PAGE 7
individual vessel type. The main calibration of the new CSR was made against
the latest rules of the individual class societies. The individual class society
rules have been calibrated against know failures and success over the years as
well as being calibrated against extensive direct calculations using spectral
fatigue or stochastic methods. The calibration took into account the increased
criteria associated with using the North Atlantic environment and a 25 year
fatigue life, both of which served to generally increase the fatigue related
requirements.
15) Provide information to justify the data of the benchmark studies carried out to
ascertain the accuracy of the simplified fatigue analysis method included in the rules.
Ans: Please refer to the answer to question 14.
16) With respect to Tier III.4, Fatigue, it is not clear that everyone has the same
understanding of what is meant by fatigue life. Therefore, please define what IACS
means when they say that they have designed to a fatigue life of 25 years. (Our
simple understanding is that a 25 year fatigue life means that there is a 97%
confidence level that the detail under consideration will not exhibit a detectable crack
(6 mm?) before age 25 when exposed to North Atlantic environmental conditions
over its life time.) Once a fatigue crack appears, how quickly does IACS expect it to
grow through-thickness, and then to a length that would affect structural integrity of
the vessel?
Ans: The definition of fatigue life offered within the parentheses ( ) in this question
is generally used by IACS. Indicating the time a crack will grow is not a
simple task, however it is correct that in most instances there is period of time
between when a crack first appears and when it would propagate to a point that
it would affect the structural integrity of the local structure or even the vessel.
Typically once a crack appears it is generally repaired. If a local temporary
repair or drill stop can not be used and it not obvious that there is sufficient
time to repair the crack at the next schedule repair date, a crack propagation
analysis may be carried out to determine if the repair may be postponed, i.e.
determine how quickly it will grow.
17) Also with respect to Fatigue, the Tier II requirement appears to be lacking better
definition of the determination of fatigue. We would appreciate IACS comments on
what should be included as the basis for the fatigue calculation (hydrodynamic load
analysis at various wave headings, Miner's rule, -2 sigma S-N curves, etc.)
Ans: The area of fatigue is very complex and there are many different approaches
used which take into consideration the problems associated with the
application. For example the approach used in repetitive tanker structure is not
the same as that used in isolated offshore connections. The main measurement
is the calibration of the approach or a comparison of the approach with existing
results that have proven to be acceptable over time. As the current task is to
develop goal-based standards there should be sufficient flexibility built into the
Tier II requirements such that new rule development is not stifled. Having said
7 March 2007
Page 7
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 3
PAGE 8
that, there are some basic parameters which may be referenced such as using
the North Atlantic environment, 25 year life, Miner's rule, and -2 sigma S-N
curves.
18) In IACS Documentation Package (Para II.4 - Fatigue life) is mentioned the "damage
ratio". To prevent fatigue fracture this ratio must not exceed 1.0. In practice, because
of the various uncertainties the limit value is substantially less than 1.0 (typical values
are in the range from 0.1 to 0.3). It should be useful to clarify the values adopted in
CSR.
Ans: The CSR was developed with individual margins built in to the various steps,
such as the environment, SN curve, stress determination, etc. and calibrated
such that the usage factor of 1.0 represents the acceptance limit. We are aware
that other industries as well as the offshore industry calculates fatigue without
individual margins but then in the end introduce an overall factor such as 2, 3
or 10 which would correspond to the 0.1 to 0.3 as you state. The two
approaches are simply looking at the same problem but solving it in different
ways.
Tier II.5:
19) With respect to Tier II.5, the term 'specified damaged conditions' is not defined and as
indicated by our discussions it will be difficult to verify without a better definition.
We would appreciate IACS opinion of what would be a reasonable definition (e.g.
loss of all longitudinal material between two adjacent crack arrestors anywhere within
the midship section, at the maximum environmental condition.)
Ans: Since the rule requirements only consider intact structure, specified damage
conditions have not been defined in the rules. The effect of structural damage
has traditionally been considered as outside the main scope of class, but some
class societies have introduced such requirements as part of additional class
notations.
If specified damage conditions were to be included in the rules, the extent of
damage to consider should be defined based on statistical data available from
reported collision and grounding damages. Also, the damage conditions
specfied should be seen in relation to the damage assumptions made for
specifications for oil outflow analysis in MARPOL. Damage data are available
in the IMO damage database, and were used in the EU project HARDER to
produce probability distributions for damage extents.
In order to use the damage statistics, a damage probability level must be
defined. The probability level should be determined based on a target
probability of survival in the case of collision or grounding. At the same time,
the probability level to be used for the environmental loads in the damaged
condition must be defined. The return period of the loads used for this
condition should be reduced compared with the intact condition, to account for
7 March 2007
Page 8
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 3
PAGE 9
the fact that most collisions and groundings occur close to shore, where the
environmental conditions are expected to be less severe.
Finally, the requirements determined using the above considerations need to be
calibrated against existing designs.
Tier II.6:
20) It should be very important to keep in a GOOD condition of cargo hold against
corrosion to conduct relevant and sufficient inspection. This will be discussed in IMO
DE50 for amendments to IMO A744(18) EPS programme.
Ans: Thank you for your comments. IACS is well aware of the fact that the
compulsory coating of cargo tanks will be an agenda of IMO.
21) What is the basis of the CSR for the life of the protection against corrosion of main
structural members of tankers? It should be recognized that corrosion debris in the
cargo hold of oil tankers are mainly the effluents of chemical reaction (mainly by
sulphur contents of the cargo) and does not the fall out of the construction members
itself.
Ans: As there have not been mandatory coating requirements of cargo tanks but
ships whose cargo tanks were voluntarily coated partly (e.g. upper deck and
longitudinals) have been constructed. This fact is automatically taken into
account in CSR because thickness measurements data inevitably includes both
data.
22) Provide information to justify the data on the statistical analyses used to develop the
corrosion additions included in the rules.
Ans: IACS will prepare a technical background document which includes such
information.
23) We would like to hear a more comprehensive description of the statistical basis for
the corrosion allowance. Based on their statistical work and experience, we are
interested in IACS' best estimate of the expected % of steel replacement for a tanker
built to minimum CSR requirements, assuming a typical (average) level of
maintenance and a 25 year life. Does the 95% assumption translate into an estimated
5% steel replacement as a mean value?
Ans: The estimated 5% steel replacement does not imply that ships which are
normally operated and maintained will have to replace 5% of total steel. As
ships conditions depend on their operation and maintenance, the ship group
which is poorly maintained will have to replace steel of much larger than 5%.
Instead, another ship group which is normally maintained will not need to
replace 5% of total steel.
Tier II.11:
7 March 2007
Page 9
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 3
PAGE 10
24) With respect to Tier II.11, Construction Quality, and based on some of the CG and
group discussion, we would appreciate a comment from IACS as to how it is
determined that a shipyard is qualified to construct a vessel to their rules.
Ans: UR Z23 contains requirements for the review of the construction facility. Also
it specifies that prior to commencing any newbuilding project, the
classification society is to discuss with the shipbuilder at a kick off meeting the
items listed in Table 1. The purpose of the meeting is to agree how the list of
specific activities shown in Table 1 is to be addressed. Further, the
classification society is required to provide evidence to prove the consistency
of its surveys (e.g. through records, check lists, inspection and test records,
etc.).
***
7 March 2007
Page 10
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 4
Questions/Comments to IACS During Presentation on March 12
1. TSCF has been drafting a document that will establish a standard for the minimum
level of maintenance expected from class and owners. The document was established
because a consistent definition was found to be lacking throughout industry. The
document is going to print shortly and should be out sometime in the summer.
Ans: This will be an interesting document to review and we look forward to
receiving it. When IACS was formulating the CSR, we wrestled with such a
definition, but in the end simply referred to the existing survey requirements of
the individual class societies.
Tier III.2
2. Does the presentation on Environmental Conditions cover CSR or IACS UR 34?
Ans: The presentation includes some background and assumptions for the
Environmental Conditions specified in IACS UR 34, as well as the procedure
followed to derive the rule loads used in CSR using the conditions specified in
IACS UR 34. Please note that IACS UR 34 only covers the wave statistics and
how to use them, while CSR includes prescriptive load formuleas that are
derived based on these data.
3. Regarding speed for wave encounters, is it enough to say that speed is included, or
should there be some guidance to the master, for example, beyond simple due
diligence?
Ans: Speed is included in the wave encounters for the fatigue loads, but not for the
loads used for strength assessment. This approach was based on model tests
showing that full form ships are only able to maintain very small forward
speeds, even in 5-year storms. In addition, speed sensitivity studies were
carried out during the rule development, showing that the effect of speed on the
dynamic loads is small. Consequently, the load formulations in the rules are
not based on the assumption that the master voluntarily reduces the speed in
heavy weather, and it is not considered necessary to give any specific guidance
related to speed reduction.
4. What about new types of wave data?
Ans: The existing scatter diagram is based on visual observations from ships. The
advantage of this scatter diagram is that it is based on a large amount of data,
but there is some uncertainty connected to the observations. There is also some
effect of bad weather avoidance included in the data. New wave data are now
available, based on information from buoys, satellites, and wave radars.
However, all these methods have uncertainties related to them, and so far the
different data sets show large variation. Therefore, more work is needed before
a modified scatter diagram can be adopted. See slide page 25.
PP Questions to IACS during the March 2007 meeting 28-Jun-2007.doc
Page 1 of 11
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 4
PAGE 2
5. Are the effects of steep waves included?

Ans: The effect of steep waves is not included, since this is considered to be a
research topic. More informations is required regarding a physical
understanding of the problem, the probability of occurrence (statistical model),
spatial and time distribution of the wave (wave model), and a numerical load
model. See slide page 26-27.
6. Why does slide (??) show slightly more bending aft of midship than forward?
Ans: This was a question as to why the effect of the speed on the global bending
moment is larger aft of midship than forward. It is difficult to give the exact
reason for this, since the global bending moment is affected by a number of
factors. One factor is that the effect of speed on the sinkage and trim have been
accounted for when applying forward speed. This will give slightly different
buoyancy and force. Another factor is the wave heading. The vertical bending
moment may, for some vessels, be worse for following seas in the aft region of
the vessel. The results shown in the figure are envelope values, calculated as
long term values accounting for all wave headings and all sea states in the
scatter diagram for a particular vessel. A third factor is that in case of forward
speed the encounter periods are changed for encountering and following
waves, changing the "spread" of the RAO (eg "shorter", "wider"
peak). These RAO's are combined with longterm sea-data giving larger or
smaller response, depending on typical wave-length of the sea-state. Length of
vessel in addition to the encounter frequency and the sea-state will then decide
if the response increases or decreases. Therefore, it is difficult to say why the
results for this case show a larger effect in the aft part than in the fore part.
7. Does the rule envelope cover the calculations?
Ans: Yes. See slide page 24.
8. How many years does 10-8 probability of exceedance equate to: 20 or 25 years?
Ans: The probability level for the design load is 1/N, where N is number of load
cycles during the design life. The actual number of wave load cycles for a certain ship
will depend on the ship size, speed and port time. The number of wave load cycles
corresponding to a design life of 25 years is assumed constant and equal to 108.
Previously, this value was assumed to represent 20 years, but it is found to more
representative for 25 years. The difference in load magnitude between loads based on
a 25 year and a 20 year return period is small. For example; if the 10-8 probability
level relates exactly to a 25 year return period, then corresponding 20 year return
period would be given at a probability level of 10-7.9, assuming that the long-term
distribution of the load can be represented by a Weibull distribution with a shape
parameter equal to 1.0. The corresponding difference in actual load value is
approximately 1%. See slide page 33.
9. What is the most probable largest value for load probability

Page 2 of 11
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 4
PAGE 3
Ans: The most probable largest load is the load level that is most likely to be the
largest value occuring during the design life. This corresponds to the maximum
value of the probability density distribution for the load. See slide page 34.
10. How does the 1.2 safety factor on ultimate strength match up with the load slide?
Ans: (ref. Q&A no. 9 in PP Questions to IACS prior to.) The partial safety
factors specified for the ultimate hull girder strength check are calibrated using
reliability analysis. The aim of the calibration is to ensure a sufficient and
consistent overall safety level for all ships, accounting for the uncertainties and
randomness related to the calculation of load and strength. For the wave
bending moment, the uncertainties accounted for are the randomness and
uncertainty in the sea state data, and uncertainties related to the wave load
prediction. For the hull girder bending capacity, the randomness and
uncertainty in the material properties and the uncertainties related to the
capacity model are accounted for.
The characteristic value of the wave bending moment is calculated as the most
probable largest value, while the characteristic value of the hull girder capacity
is based on minimum values of the material strength.
The calibration process carried out for the partial safety factors is described in
detail in Section 9.1 of the Background Documentation to the CSR.
11. Appears that exceedance on one can wipe out the safety factor on the other. There
appears to be no linkage in the rules to whats actually happening in practice.
Ans: This statement is not correct. The safety factors have been determined using a
systematic calibration procedure, using reliability analysis to arrive at the target
safety level. This procedure accounts for the uncertainties related to both load
and strength, including the probability of exceeding the most probable largest
load value. Ref. also Q&A no. 10.
12. Is the presentation for just CSR or for other class rules as well?
Ans: This is just a general approach, but it has existed in class rules long before
CSR.
13. The discussion is about global loads. What about local loads?
Ans: In principle, safety factors for local loads are calibrated in a similar way as for
the global loads. However, the partial safety factor (PF) format is only applied
for the hull girder strength criterion. For the other criteria, the Working Stress
Design (WSD) method is applied, meaning that a single safety factor is used to
account for uncertainties related to both loads and strength.
14. How is the load from the pressure profile treated above the waterline, especially
considering the stress/load path discontinuity?
Ans: The stretching above waterline for is found by linear interpolation from where
the dynamic pressure is zero and the still waterline. The point where the
Page 3 of 11
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 4
PAGE 4
dynamic pressure is zero is taken as Pwl/10, where Pwl is the dynamic pressure
at still waterline. Reference is made to Section 7.3 of CSR, and Section 7.3 of
the External Background documentation.
15. What are the implicit safety factors for actual sailing conditions? If acceptable for
only one area, they arent acceptable.
Ans: Actual sailing conditions are not considered in the calibration of the safety
factors. Since the rules are developed for unrestricted operation, continuous
operation in the North Atlantic for the entire design life is assumed. The safety
margins are set to be sufficient even for the worst possible trading.
Consequently, when considering implicit safety factors in general, actual
sailing conditions are not accounted for. In reality, however, the safety level for
each ship will depend on the trading route of the ship, and ships operating in
benign waters will obviously have a higher implicit safety margin than ships
trading in more severe environment.
Tier III.3
16. Why 0.9T?
Ans: There are empty tanks in this particular loading condition, so the ship can not
be at maximum draft. However, these are just rule cases. If there is a unique
load case that results in full draft and empty tanks, these must be analyzed as
well.
17. There does not appear to be a full load case.
Ans: It is generally not a governing condition for global FEM conditions where
checkerboard full and empty tanks are more critical.
18. Why do the calculations begin with one half of the corrosion margin used?
Ans: This will be discussed later under the net scantlings topic.
19. On slide page 44, what does M consider? The properties of different shapes should
be considered, especially for those that are non-symmetrical. The stress increase
should be considered for local scantlings.
Ans: The factor M is the bending moment factor considering end fixity and
relation to the hull girder bending, e.g. horizontal or vertical orientation. You
make a good point regarding stress concentrations due to non-symmetrical
sections, this factor is covered in fatigue where the symmetric arrangement of
the stiffener has a high influence, but not strength.
20. What shape is the coefficient biased towards?
Ans: Angles.
21. It should be noted that most failures are in fatigue.
Page 4 of 11
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 4
PAGE 5
Ans: Agree, if number of failures is considered rather than possible consequences.

22. On slide page 61, has 170% of the yield stress been validated using non-linear
analysis, especially with respect to high strength steel?
Ans: Yes. Non-linear analysis was used to validate this. Additionally, application
of 170% is controlled to places such as local high stress areas and not in way of
welds. If the size of the higher stress area is controlled, the assumptions are
okay. Also, we use mild steel and H32 allowable stress levels even if H36 or
higher strength material is used.
23. On slides page 65-67, and based upon the discussion, there seems to be less
uncertainty about the response and more about the loading.
Ans: Agree. In general the loads have a higher degree of uncertainty than the
properties of the material or fabrication which are controlled during yard Q/C
and class inspections. In addition the engineering modeling of the structural
response has been well known and used for a long time.
24. How are transitions addressed in the rules to ensure continuity? As written, the rules
appear to end at the cargo block. Is that acceptable practice? With no examples or
analysis, how is it interpreted or left to the Group of Experts to decipher?
Ans: The CSR cover the whole vessel structure and include prescriptive rules
covering continuity of structure, especially at the ends of cargo block
longitudinal members extending into the end structure of the vessel. At this
point in time IACS does not require FEA at transitions. It is a good suggestion
to put examples in the rules. Some people like to have examples showing
accepted arrangements, however others feel that examples are regarding as the
only solution that that they tie their hands.
* At this point, there was a general discussion among PP members regarding whether
or not this was a problem and how it should be treated within GBS. Mr. Kim
explained how the yards handled this issue in practice.
25. Does a 50% reduction in net thickness equate to a 10% reduction in hull girder
strength?
Ans: In general yes. Based on the initial studies for tankers performed during rule
development, its a narrow band from about 9 to 11%.
26. If many members were reduced, but not to renewal thickness, would you still have to
renew steel if there was a 10% reduction in overall hull girder strength?
Ans: Yes. It is an IMO and class requirements.
27. Owners extra can skew average thicknesses and hence the calculations.
Ans: CSR does not include any owners extra thickness in the FEA or local strength
analysis, meaning that extra thicknesses requested on net scantlings by the
Owner above rules corrosion additions are fully available for corrosion.
Page 5 of 11
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 4
PAGE 6
28. How has the mode for fatigue evaluation properties with respect to net scantlings
been evaluated?
Ans: Fatigue is evaluated differently than the strength calculations. For strength
calculations, we are assessing the scantlings in the worst condition permitted
during in-service thickness measurements against the design extreme loads.
Fatigue is a cumulative process that begins on the first day of delivery when
the vessel is in the as-built condition and the process ends when the vessel is in
the worst condition permitted during in-service thickness measurements. Due
the variations between these two conditions the net scantlings for fatigue
simply takes the average between the two. There are some differences between
tanker and bulk carrier CSR in this regard which IACS is in the process of
solving.
Tier III.4
29. How do you account for variations in the shape of structural members due to
corrosion along with subsequent changes to the stress path?
Ans: A coefficient has been introduced in the fatigue calculation to take corrosion
effects into account.
30. What steps have been taken since JTP to sharpen the safety factors, margins, etc?
Ans: See slide page 85. CSR is more stringent that the current standard.
31. How are you accommodating (or assessing) data from pre-CSR ships?
Ans: We are looking at it.
Tier III.5
32. What is a reasonable extent of damage?
Ans: Structural damage due to collision or damage is not considered in the rules, and
the extent of damage has therefore not been defined.
33. Regarding the slide on page 89, what are the environmental conditions?
Ans: The slide on page 89 shows examples of damage conditions that are considered
in voluntary class notations offered by some class societies. In the first
example a 3 month storm is assumed, while in the other example a one year
storm is assumed. For both cases, a safety factor of 1.0 is used.
34. Regarding flooding and global strength, it is possible to be in a more severe sea state.
Have you looked at bending in a more probabilistic manner? If not, how confident
are you that its already addressed?

Page 6 of 11
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 4
PAGE 7
Ans: The global strength in the flooded condition is considered to be implicitly

covered by the rules, based on typical inherent residual strength exhibited by
existing vessels upon which the rules were calibrated.
35. On page 31 of the Demonstration Package (3rd paragraph from the bottom), it refers
to effect of local fluid pressure . not counted in the hull girder assessment. What
does that mean?
Ans: Flooding of a compartment will lead to additional local pressure acting on the
structure in the compartment. In the rules, the structure is assessed considering
this local pressure resulting from flooding. However, the flooding will also
possibly lead to a change in the stillwater bending moment distribution for the
hull girder. This effect is not considered in the hull girder strength assessment.
Tier II.6
36. When JTP was first developed, coating was considered redundant, yet now it seems
to have become an integral part of the process. Therefore, it seems that it should
contribute to the scatter on the diagram.
Ans: Once the new coating requirements come into force, the scatter on the graphs
could be reduced.
37. Was the corrosion data culled?
Ans: No. All data was stored in the database and categorized according to their
corrosive environments such as type of cargo, locations, temperature etc. The
corrosion additions of DH Tanker CSR were determined by the categorized
data. As a result some data could not be utilized in the rules because some
corrosive environments do not exist within DH Tankers. For example,
thickness measurements data of pre-MARPOL ballast tanks with abrasive
cargo could not be used.
38. There seem to be few IACS data point for ships over 16 years in age.
Ans: When IACS collected data, the number of tankers over 16 years in age and
whose corrosive environments are close to those of CSR tankers were few.
Hence thickness measurement data is few.
39. Were the ships in the data set recoated during their life?
Ans: We dont know really, we consider this in the statistical sense. However, most
ships do not recoat after 10 years.
40. After 25 years, is 5% of the steel wasted beyond 3.5 mm? Does that apply anywhere
or just in the tanks?
Ans: Yes
41. Does it vary from vessel to vessel and by type of vessel?
Page 7 of 11
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 4
PAGE 8
Ans: Yes. These are fleet statistics.

42. On slide page 110, are the data on this slide the same as from the previous slide (100),
as they do not appear to have the same shape?
Ans: No. The figure on slide page 110 illustrates an example of thickness diminution
of hold frames of single side skin bulk carriers.
43. What happens when the new IMO coating standards are implemented? Does the
graph shift to the right?
Ans: Yes. It is likely that the start point of thickness diminution will shift to the right
because duration of intact condition can be longer than the present one in the
figure on slide page 110.
44. Once a plate loses its coatings, corrosion growth is exponential and does not level
out per the IACS model.
Ans: In case of general corrosion (uniform thickness diminution), one of whose
counter measures is to add corrosion addition, the corrosion growth is not
exponential according to the outcome of statistical analysis based on real
thickness measurement data. In case of local corrosion whose corroded area is
limited, the corrosion growth is close to exponential because in the first stage it
progresses depth-wise as illustrated in the figure on the slide page 101.
However, the counter measure of this kind of corrosion is not to add corrosion
addition.
45. It depends on the type of corrosion.
Ans: Yes. In order to determine thickness of corrosion addition, general corrosion,
i.e. uniform diminution/reduction over an extensive area should be taken as
explained in the slide page 109.
46. Flexing of a plate can cause flakes of corrosion to fall off, which can open up new
areas for corrosion growth.
Ans: IACS agrees with your comments. It should be noted that it is a local
phenomenon of corrosion progress. Timing of falling off of flakes varies
within an extensive area. IACS believe that this phenomenon is reflected to
real thickness measurement.
47. Please provide additional information on who conducted the referenced corrosion
study, how many measurements were considered, when was it published, provide
additional details, etc?
Ans: See slide pages 112-113. The IACS database was established in the late
1990s. The study consistent of data from 500 ships with 600,000 data points.
The data was published by individual classification societies. The ships range
from 3 to 27 years old.

Page 8 of 11
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 4
PAGE 9
48. 30,000 3,000 data points per ship implies not very many data points, and means a
limited data set.
Ans: IACS understands that 3, 000 comes from dividing 600,000 by 500 but
believes that the average value is not appropriate to consider the volumes of
data set. The important thing is that the data set consists of about 500 real
thickness measurements reports collected by IACS. The number of data points
of thickness measurement reports vary very much depending on ships size,
ships age and applicable rules when measurements were carried out. It should
be recalled that minimum number of thickness measurements required by rules
is increasing time to time. In addition, it should be born in mind that if ships
conditions are very poor and there are many suspected area, data points are to
be increased according to rules for survey and inspection. Oppositely in case
ships conditions are very good, data points need not to be increased.
49. The data set is not so limited, as there are more ships and data points than implied.
Ans: Yes, it is true. In addition, it should be noted that the minimum number of data
points required by present rules is much larger than those in the past. It implies
that one older data point tends to represent wider area than now.
Tier III.7
50. Would localized damage weaken a corrugated bulkhead?
Ans: It depends on the extent of damage. Small, local indents will have a marginal
effect, while larger damages will have a larger weakening effect.
51. Have classification societies agreed whether corrugated bulkheads carry shear loads?
Ans: Yes. There is a UR that covers the topic.
Tier III.10
52. In CSR, there is no requirement for the evaluation of alternate methods. Without
such a requirement, how can it be ensured that such an alternate method produces
equal results?
Ans: The requirements are written generally because of the wide variety of cases.
However, the evaluation of alternate methods is carried out based on
equivalency principle. It has to be demonstrated that the proposed alternative
method produces equivalent results as the one in the Rules.
53. There is no mention of intellectual property rights in CSR. Too much emphasis on
design transparency could negatively impact shipyards.
Ans: CSR do not address intellectual property rights. These are outside of
classification societys responsibilities and should be regulated through
Page 9 of 11
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 4
PAGE 10
contractual arrangements between the involved parties. Protection of these

rights should be pursued through the normal legal channels.
Tier III.11
54. Please identify an example of a substantial non-conformance? (ref slide page 132)
Ans: The surveyor identifies that the scope of the agreed NDT requirements is not
being followed.
55. What happens at that point? Increased inspections? When?
Ans: At that point, the classification society will review the situation with the yard
and agree remedial measures. Increased inspections could be required as one of
such measures.
56. What about shipyard qualification schemes?
Ans: They are covered by some individual classification societies, but not IACS.
However, UR Z23 does contain an assessment form which can be used by
IACS members in assessing the capabilities of the yard.
Tier III.12
57. Its not clear how class adjusts manpower to meet the shipyard construction schedule.
Ans: This is one of the purposes on Table 1 of UR Z23 referenced on slide page 138
and the meeting between the yard and classification society, as specified in UR
Z23. The scope of work and the experience of the shipyard will determine the
required manpower
58. What are the requirements under CSR for testing?
Ans: Some requirements are contained within the rules. Table 1 in UR Z.23
contains many more.
Tier III.15
59. Believe that it is a class responsibility to certify the existence and position of harmful
substances on board the vessel (at least at the beginning).
Ans: This is not a responsibility of classification society. It is the responsibility of a
Recognized Organization as regulated by IMO Convention under development
at MEPC. A classification society may choose to take on the role of the
Recognized Organization under this future Convention. When it does, then it
becomes its responsibility. Some classification societies provide a service to
Page 10 of 11
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 4
PAGE 11
their clients at their request and in accordance with IMO and Industry
Guidelines on Recycling until the Convention is adopted and enters into force
General
60. The CSR Demonstration Package describes requirements in different places. Will
IACS combine them?
Ans: Good point.
61. Should IACS URs be incorporated into Tier II?
Ans: URs are brought into the rules themselves at certain points, therefore, they are
more appropriate for Tier IV. << Please refer also to the answers to the
questions prior the meeting. >> IACS URs are proprietary documents of the
International Association of Classification Societies and do not have
application outside IACS there is no such thing as IACS class. It is a
requirement of membership that the URs have to be introduced into Members
Rules. Classification cannot be assigned to a ship based on application of a UR
(s) only classification Rules of an individual Member can be applied to a
design.
62. The fatigue assessment for CSR tankers and bulk carriers is different. Has there been
any study to assess potential differences in outcome from the different methods?
Ans: No. The goal is to try and harmonize in the next 5 to 6 years.
63. Please describe how the use of speed for wave encounters differs for tankers and bulk
carriers.
Ans: Speed is only considered for fatigue. It is not considered for maximum wave
loading for either tankers or bulk carriers. Therefore as mentioned in the
answer to question 62, the goal is to try and harmonize this in the next 5 to 6
years.
***

Page 11 of 11
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 5
MSC 82/5/11
Submitted by IACS
Goal-Based New Ship Construction

Standards
Tier II.2
Net Scantlings
MSC82 GBS Net Scantlings
Net Scantling - Philosophy

1.
Provide a link between the assumed reduction in strength during

newbuilding strength evaluations and the in-service gauging
assessment criteria
2.
Todays in-service gauging assessment criteria covers:

Global strength corrosion
General corrosion
Local (pitting, grooving and edge) corrosion
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 5
PAGE 2
General Corrosion uniform thickness reduction in mm over

an extensive area.
Design
includes link
between
newbuilding
and in-service
standards
In Service
Wastage
Allowance
Corrosion
Addition
Predicted
corrosion
in 2.5 years
(0.5 mm)
Required
Net
Thickness
Required
Renewal
Thickness
Annual
Thickness
Measurements
Net Scantlings - Philosophy

Existing in-service gauging criteria
Evaluations made on gross scantling
IACS proposed GBS definition

Evaluations made on net scantling
( - corrosion deducted)
( + corrosion added)

10%:

10% (same as Z net50 ):
Z measured Z renewal = 0.9 x Z gross required

General corrosion deducted from as-built:
% deduction or local simplified buckling,
whichever is less
Local corrosion:
corrosion
Field Stresses:
Based on gross scantling
Z measured Z renewal = Z net50

General corrosion added to net scantling:
Discrete margins, in millimeters, based on
surface exposure.
Local corrosion:
corrosion
Field Stresses:
Based on hull girder properties reduced by
10% ( Z net50 )
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 5
PAGE 3
Strength
As built
50%
Strength evaluation
50%
Renewal
Strength evaluation
Time
Strength
As built
50%
50%
Strength evaluation
50%
50%
Renewal
Strength evaluation
Fatigue evaluation
Local properties
Time
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 5
PAGE 4
Strength
As built
25%
50%
50%
25%
Strength evaluation
Fatigue evaluation
Hull girder properties

50%
50%
Renewal
Strength evaluation
Fatigue evaluation
Local properties
Time
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 5
PAGE 5
Net Scantling Local Corrosion
Local Corrosion local pitting, edge or groove

thickness reduction.
10
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 5
PAGE 6
Pitting (Tankers)
Pitting (mm)
t tm 0.7 (t as built t own )
ttm tren 1
Individual thickness
measurement is to meet
the lesser of the formula
Pitting intensity less than
20%
ttm measured thickness (gauged)
tren thickness at which renewals are required
based on general corrosion
11
Edge (Tankers)
Edge (mm)
t tm 0.7 (t as built t own )
ttm tren 1

12
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 5
PAGE 7
Groove (Tankers)
Groove (mm)
t tm 0.75(t as built t own )
ttm tren 0.5
ttm = 6

13
GBS Net Scantlings

Proposed definition of net scantling to use in Tier II.3:

"The net scantlings are to provide the structural strength required
to sustain the design loads, assuming the structure in intact
condition and are to be derived from newbuilding strength
evaluations linked to in-service diminution limits as follows:
.1 diminution of the hull girder section modulus is limited to not
more than ten percent (10%), corresponding global stress
calculations of the hull girder and primary support members
may be based on this general scantling reduction,
.2 individual plates and stiffening elements are to have sufficient
strength to sustain design loads excluding additions for
corrosion,
.3 fatigue calculations account for scantling variations through
the design life,
.4 highly localized pitting, grooving and edge corrosion are to be
treated separately and are typically not included in the
newbuilding evaluations.
14
MSC 82/5/11
Submitted by IACS
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 5
PAGE 8
Net Thickness
Q/A
15
***
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 6
IACS
36 Broadway
Tel: +44 (0)20 7976 0660
IACS Study
Steel Weight Impact from Net
Scantling Definition
24 April 2007
Submitted to:
IMO Pilot Project
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 6
PAGE 2

Telephone: +44-(0)207 976 0660
Fax:
+44-(0)207-808 11007
E-mail:
permsec@iacs.org.uk

Produced in April 2007 for the International Association of Classification Societies.
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 6
PAGE 3
IACS Study
Steel Weight Impact from Net Scantling Definition
I. Introduction
This document has been assembled to illustrate the impact on the vessel steel
weight of the two different definitions for net scantlings proposed for use in the
IMO Goal-based Ship Construction Standards (GBS). In submittal MSC 82/5/11,
IACS pointed out that not all parties seemed to have a common understanding or
interpretation of the definition of net scantling in Tier II as currently written in
Tier II, Section II.3.
The goal of this document is to share preliminary estimates of the steel weight
impact of two different interpretations of the definition of net scantlings so that an
informed decision can be made on the way forward. This is a preliminary study
which was performed using typical tanker designs.
The outcome is, if the current wording and interpretation as contained in GBS
Tier II is used, the steel weight of tankers will generally be increased by 3.65% to
7.8% over that of the IACS proposal. This would be in addition to the general
steel weight increases as brought about by the new IACS CSRs. The percentage
increase is calculated based on the original steel weight and the associated
increases in way of the cargo block structure only. This increase will generally
have to be provided in the longitudinal deck and bottom areas as well as to all of
the primary support members. It should be noted that the increase in steel weight
will only increase the magnitude of the required net and associated gross
scantlings and will not affect the magnitude of the wastage allowances used in
service to assess thickness measurements, the wastage allowances will remain the
same between the two definitions.
II. Net Scantling Definitions
The GBS Tier II.3 contains the text Ships should be designed with suitable
safety to withstand, at net scantlings**, in the intact condition, the
environmental conditions anticipated for the ships design life and the loading
conditions appropriate for them.
The following are the two different proposals for the footnote (**) which is used
to define what is meant by the term net scantlings.
i. the current Tier II, Section II.3 indicates:
** The net scantlings should provide the structural strength required to sustain
the design loads, assuming the structure in intact condition and excluding any
addition for corrosion.
ii. IACS proposal contained in MSC 82/5/11 indicates:
IACS Study: Steel Weight Impact from Net Scantling Definition
24 April 2007
Page 3
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 6
PAGE 4
** The net scantlings are to provide the structural strength required to sustain the
design loads, assuming the structure in intact condition and are to be derived
from newbuilding strength evaluations linked to in-service diminution limits
as follows:
a) diminution of the hull girder section modulus is limited to not more than
ten percent (10%), corresponding global stress calculations of the hull
girder and primary support members may be based on this general
scantling reduction,
b) individual plates and stiffening elements are to have sufficient strength to
sustain design loads excluding additions for corrosion,
c) fatigue calculations account for scantling variations through the design life,
d) highly localized pitting, grooving and edge corrosion are to be treated
separately and are typically not included in the newbuilding evaluations.
III. General Discussion
In summary the IACS proposal has adopted an approach which is believed to
realistically model the corrosion behavior and structural strength of actual ships
and which links the corrosion margin at new construction to the corrosion
allowance for ships in service.
The current wording in GBS Tier II, on the other hand, simply states that the net
scantlings should provide the structural strength required to sustain the design
loads, assuming the structure in intact condition and excluding any addition for
corrosion. This is essentially the same as the IACS proposal treatment of net
scantlings for individual structural elements (item b in the IACS proposal).
However, this simple definition is interpreted by some to mean that all strength
calculations, including hull girder strength and fatigue strength are to be
performed assuming that all the individual structural elements are at their net
scantlings simultaneously, from the outset, without any corrosion additions. This
interpretation ignores the reality that all structural elements do not corrode
uniformly with time, or from another point of view, requires that no account is to
be taken of the corrosion additions/margins which are built into the ship when it is
delivered. It also ignores the reality that fatigue damage and corrosion are interrelated time dependent processes and requires that the newly built ship have a
minimum fatigue life calculated as if the corrosion additions did not exist at all. If
this interpretation is adopted, it will require additional steel weight above the
latest developed IACS Common Structural Rules (CSR), mainly at the deck, at
the bottom and the primary support members.
As noted above, one of the main differences between the two interpretations is
how the average or simultaneous corrosion is handled for the longitudinal strength
evaluation. The IACS proposal is consistent with the current IMO 10% allowable
diminution of the hull girder section modulus as per Resolution MSC.105(73) and
Resolution MSC.145(77) for tankers and bulk carriers, respectively. It should be
noted that this 10% diminution is consistent with actual vessel corrosion patterns
24 April 2007
Page 4
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 6
PAGE 5
and rarely do actual vessels exceed the allowable 10% limit. The simple
definition and interpretation seeks to increase this allowable up to 20%.
IV. Method
In order to obtain a general understanding of these two definitions, and to gain
and understanding of the impact they would have on steel weight, three typical
tanker designs of varying sizes were used, representing VLCC, Aframax and
Product sizes.
The main difference between the two definitions lies in the way the global
diminutions are handled for the longitudinal strength and the primary support
members. The IACS proposal uses half of the corrosion allowance to represent
the simultaneous or average corrosion mechanism, therefore to calculate the
impact of using the simplified interpretation, half of the IACS margins have to
be added back into the affected structural areas. The following method was used:
1) Deck area; add 0.5tcorr to the deck area including the longitudinal plating and
attached stiffeners.
2) Bottom area; add material as per the attached table below to the longitudinal
plating and attached stiffeners.
Actual vs offered bottom
section modulus
Zbot < 1.2 Zbot-rq
Material to be added
1.2 Zbot-rq < Zbot < 1.3

Zbot-rq
1.3 Zbot-rq < Zbot
0.25tcorr
0.5tcorr
No addition
Zbot is the actual calculated hull girder bottom section modulus of the vessel.
Zbot-rq is the required hull girder bottom section modulus.
3) Primary support members; add 0.5tcorr to all primary support members

including web frames, floors and horizontal stringers of transverse bulkheads.
4) The longitudinal extent was taken as the cargo block area of the vessel. The
midship results of the steel weight differences were simply extracted for the
whole cargo block.
V. Results
The following is a summary of the impact on steel weight.
VLCC:
The resulting total added steel weight is 1383 tonnes, or a 6.21 percent increase.
Material was added to the longitudinal members as highlighted in red in the
sketches below as well as the primary support members including web frames and
floors in accordance with the method described above.
24 April 2007
Page 5
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 6
PAGE 6
Midship tanks
Aft tank
Forward tank
The following table lists general information for the net scantling definition for
the simplified interpretation in GBS and the IACS proposal. The gross
scantling, the net (renewal) thickness and the corrosion allowances for selected
major areas of the vessel are indicated.
24 April 2007
Page 6
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 6
PAGE 7
GBS
IACS
GBS
IACS
Corrosion
Allowance
Both GBS
and IACS
20.5
24.0
19.5
19.5
23.0
19.0
17.0
14.0
14/22
12.5/20
12/20
13/25
14.0/26.5
12/20
11.5/16.0
13
18.5
24.0
19.5
19.5
21.0
19.0
17.0
14.0
12/20
12.5/20
12/20
13/25
12.5/25
12/20
11.5/16.0
13
16.5
20.5
16.5
16.5
19.0
16.5
14.0
11.0
10/18
9.5/17
9/17
10/22
11/23.5
9.5/17.5
8.5/13
10
14.5
20.5
16.5
16.5
17.0
16.5
14.0
11.0
8/16
9.5/17
9/17
10/22
9.5/22
9.5/17.5
8.5/13
10
4.0
3.5
3.0
3.0
4.0
2.5
3.0
3.0
(4.0 / 4.0)
(3.0 / 3.0)
(3.0 / 3.0)
(3.0 / 3.0)
(3.0 / 3.0)
(2.5 / 2.5)
3.0
3.0
17
21.25
19.5
15
20
18
14
18.75
16.5
11
17.5
15.0
4.0
2.5
3.0
Net
Gross
Longitudinal Elements
Deck plate
Side shell plate
Inner side plate
Bottom plate
Inner-bottom plate
Long. bhd. CL
Bottom girder
Long. stringer
Deck longs. (W / F)
Side shell longs. (W / F)
Inner side longs. (W / F)
Bottom longs. (W / F)
Inner-bottom longs. (W / F)
Long. bhd. CL longs. (W / F)
Bottom girder longs. (W / F)
Long. stringer longs. (W / F)
Transverse elements
Deck web plate
CL web plate
Bottom floor and side plate
The following table contains a summary of the steel weight calculation. For
reference, the CSR Effect for the longitudinal elements is included which
indicates the amount of steel weight increase that resulted from the application of
the new IACS CSR for tankers, which was 485 tonnes or 2.22%. Transverse web
and bulkhead are not updated according to the CSR rules for tankers.
The additional effect of using the simplified interpretation in the GBS is
calculated as 1383 tonnes or 6.21%. Note that the percentage is taken as GBS Diff
(weight)/ CSR (weight) = 1383 / (21799+485).
24 April 2007
Page 7
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 6
PAGE 8
Total Steel Weight

Tank
Element
Midships
Longitudinal
Elements
Plating
Stiffeners
Sub-total
Transverse
Elements
Web Frame
No. of webs
Sub-total
Sub-total-Midships
cargo tank area
Longitudinal
Elements
Plating
Stiffeners
Sub-total
Longitudinal
Elements
Plating
Stiffeners
Sub-total
Aft
tank
Fwd
Tank
TOTAL
As-Built
(Tonnes)
CSR Effect
Difference
(Tonnes)
GBS Net Scantling
Difference
(%)
GBS Diff
(Tonnes)
GBS
Diff (%)
2885
1329
4214
77
63
140
2.7%
4.8%
3.3%
175
118
293
5.9%
8.5%
6.7%
70
8
563
3.8%
21
3.8%
68
11.0%
0.0%
11.6%
14330
485
3.4%
1083
7.3%
2537
1203
3740
-66
77
12
-2.6%
6.4%
0.3%
29
109
137
1.2%
8.5%
3.7%
2544
1184
3728
-32
21
-11
-1.3%
1.8%
-0.3%
80
83
163
3.2%
6.9%
4.4%
21799
485
2.2%
1383
6.21%
Aframax Tanker:
Since the bottom as-built section modulus (net) is about 10% greater than the
required section modulus (net), 0.5tcorr material was added to the bottom in
accordance with the method mentioned above. Material was added to the
longitudinal members as highlighted in red in the sketch below as well as the
primary support members including web frames, floors and transverse bulkhead
including horizontal stringers. (Stiffeners on transverse webs and bulkheads are
not included in the weight estimates.)
24 April 2007
Page 8
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 6
PAGE 9
GBS
IACS
GBS
IACS
Corrosion
Allowance
Both GBS
and IACS
21
16.5
15
21.5
19
14.5
17.5
13
13 / 18
13 / 18
12 / 17
13.5 / 16.5
12.5 / 15.5
13 / 17
10.5 / 15.5
12 / 12
19
16.5
15
20
17
14.5
16
13
11 / 16
13 / 18
12 / 17
12 / 15
11 / 14
13 / 17
9 / 14
12 / 12
17
13
12
18.5
15
12
14.5
10
9 / 14
10 / 15
9 / 14
10.5 / 13.5
9.5 / 12.5
10.5 / 14.5
7.5 / 12.5
9/9
15
13
12
17
13
12
13
10
7 / 12
10 / 15
9 / 14
9 / 12
8 / 11
10.5/14.5
6 / 11
9/9
4.0
3.5
3.0
3.0
4.0
2.5
3.0
3.0
(4.0 / 4.0)
(3.0 / 3.0)
(3.0 / 3.0)
(3.0 / 3.0)
(3.0 / 3.0)
(2.5 / 2.5)
3.0
3.0
15
16.75
14.5/31.5
14.5 / 27
13.75/31.75
14.5
13
15.5
13/30
12.5 / 25
12.5/30
13
11
14.25
11.5/28.5
10.5 / 23
11.25/28.25
11.5
9
13
10/27
8.5 / 21
10/26.5
10
4.0
2.5
3.0
4.0
(2.5 / 3.5)
3.0
Gross
Deck plate
Side shell plate
Inner side plate
Bottom plate
Inner-bottom plate
Long. bhd. CL
Bottom girder
Long. stringer
Deck longs. (W / F)
Inner side longs. (W / F)
Long. bhd. CL longs. (W / F)
Bottom girder longs. (W / F)
Long. stringer longs. (W / F)
Transverse elements
Bulkhead near deck
Bulkhead elsewhere
Bulkhead stringer (W / F)
Deck web plate (W / F)
CL web plate (W / F)
Bottom floor and side plate
Net
24 April 2007
Page 9
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 6
PAGE 10
reference, the CSR Effect for the longitudinal elements is included which
indicates the amount of steel weight increase that resulted from the application of
the new IACS CSR for tankers, which was 359 tonnes or 3.60%. Transverse web
and bulkhead are not updated according to the CSR rules for tankers.
Total Steel Weight
As-Built
(Tonnes)
Plating
Long'l bhd
Stiffeners
Sub-total
Transverse Elements
Bulkhead incl. hor. stringers
Web Frame
Sub-total
TOTAL
CSR Effect
Difference Difference
(Tonnes)
(%)
GBS Net Scanting

Definition Effect
GBS Diff GBS Diff
(Tonnes)
(%)
4994
421
1943
7358
174
0
185
359
3.49%
0.00%
9.54%
4.89%
344
9
166
519
6.66%
2.05%
7.81%
6.73%
1000
1616
2615
9974
0
0
0
359
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
3.60%
106
181
287
806
10.57%
11.20%
10.96%
7.80%
Product Tanker:
Since the bottom as-built section modulus (net) is about 50% greater than the
required section modulus (net), no material was added to the bottom in
accordance with the method mentioned above. Therefore material was added to
the longitudinal members as highlighted in red in the sketch below as well as the
primary support members, e.g. the floors and webs.
24 April 2007
Page 10
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 6
PAGE 11
Gross
Deck plate
Side shell plate
Inner-hull plate
Bottom plate
Inner-bottom plate
Deck longs. (W / F)
Inner-hull longs. (W / F)
Deck transverse web plate
Side transverse plate
Bottom transverse floor plate
GBS
15.5
13.0
13.0
16.0
17.5
13 / 18
10 / 16
10 / 15
11.5 / 16
12 / 17
13.5
12.5
12.5
IACS
13.5
13.0
13.0
16.0
17.5
11 / 16
10 / 16
10 / 15
11.5 / 16
12 / 17
12.0
11.0
11.0
Net
GBS
11.5
9.5
9.0
13.0
13.5
9 / 14
7 / 13
7 / 12
8.5 / 13
9 / 14
11.0
9.5
9.5
IACS
9.5
9.5
9.0
13.0
13.5
7 / 12
7 / 13
7 / 12
8.5 / 13
9 / 14
9.5
8.0
8.0
Corrosion
Allowance
Both GBS
and IACS
4.0
3.5
4.0
3.0
4.0
(4.0 / 4.0)
(3.0 / 3.0)
(3.0 / 3.0)
(3.0 / 3.0)
(3.0 / 3.0)
2.5
3.0
3.0
reference, the CSR Effect is included which indicates the amount of steel
weight increase that resulted from the application of the new IACS CSR for
tankers, which was 258 tonnes or 5.94%. The result of using the IACS proposal
in included in these values. The additional effect of using the simplified
interpretation in the GBS is calculated as 168 tonnes or 3.65%..
24 April 2007
Page 11
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 6
PAGE 12
Total Steel Weight
As-Built
(Tonnes)
Plating
Long'l bhd
Stiffeners
Sub-total
Transverse Elements
Bulkhead
Web Frame
Sub-total
TOTAL
CSR Effect
Difference Difference
(Tonnes)
(%)
GBS Net Scanting

Definition Effect
GBS Diff GBS Diff
(Tonnes)
(%)
2345
259
711
3315
103
0
134
237
4.41%
0.00%
18.85%
7.16%
80
0
29
109
3.27%
0.00%
3.43%
3.07%
583
449
1032
4347
20
1
21
258
3.43%
0.22%
2.03%
5.94%
0
59
59
168
0.00%
13.11%
5.60%
3.65%
VI. Conclusions
If the simplified definition and interpretation for net scantling is used, which
calls for all strength calculations including hull girder strength assuming full
simultaneous corrosion of the structure, it would add steel weight to the structure
mainly at the deck and bottom areas and the primary support members. The
outcome is the steel weight of tankers will generally be increased by 3.65% to
7.8% over that of the IACS proposal. This increase in steel weight will only
increase the magnitude of the required net and associated gross scantlings and will
not affect the magnitude of the wastage allowances used in service to assess
thickness measurements, the wastage allowances will remain the same between
the two definitions.
The main concern is that the proposed simplified definition and interpretation
of net scantling is not technically justified and does not reflect the actual
corrosion mechanisms seen in service. Also the simplified definition and
interpretation may not be shared by the majority of the Industry.
***
24 April 2007
Page 12
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 7
IACS
36 Broadway
Tel: +44 (0)20 7976 0660
IACS Study
Impact of Applying the CSR
Corrosion Addition on the Hull
Girder Section Modulus
3 June 2007
Submitted to:
IMO Pilot Project
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 7
PAGE 2

Telephone: +44-(0)207 976 0660
Fax:
+44-(0)207-808 11007
E-mail:
permsec@iacs.org.uk

Produced in June 2007 for the International Association of Classification Societies.
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 7
PAGE 3
IACS Study
Impact of Applying the CSR Corrosion
Addition on the Hull Girder Section Modulus
I.
As a follow-up to the IACS documentation package dated 16 february 2007 and the
discussions on the Net Scantling definition, the IMO Pilot Panel asked IACS to report
on the actual effect on the hull girder section modulus (SM) of uniformly deducting
half of the corrosion addition from the longitudinal members as per the Common
Structural Rules for Tankers and Bulk Carriers. For further information please refer to
CSR Section 6/3.3.2 (0.5tcorr) for Tankers and Chapter 3, Section 3.2.1 (0.5tc) for bulk
carriers.
II.
Deducting half of the corrosion addition simultaneously from all the longitudinal
elements is used to represent the overall accumulation of corrosion to approximately
represent the point that the hull girder property reduction is similar to the existing 10
percent allowable degradation that is used during thickness measurement assessments.
For existing thickness measurement assessment, individual members are locally
permitted to waste to higher local levels, but the aggregate reduction of the hull girder
must not be more than a 10 percent degradation of the hull girder section modulus.
Therefore, as can be seen, there are two separate wastage criteria; global and local.
This report summarizes the effects on the global properties only.
III.
Another point associated with the CSR that should be noted with regard to the hull
girder properties is as follows, using mild steel levels for simplicity:
(a) the allowable longitudinal stress for gross scantlings used in the IACS pre-CSR
rules was 175 N/mm2. This was used in association with knowing that the hull girder
SM could reduce by 10 percent in service. In that case the associated allowable stress
in the corroded condition is 175 / 0.9 = 194 N/mm2.
(b) in the current CSR rules all members are simultaneously reduced using half the
corrosion addition as mentioned above, which results in degradation similar to the 10
percent reduction. Since actual corrosion could occur in millions of different patterns,
the 0.5 simultaneous reduction was used as a design representation. The CSR
requirements reflect hull girder net scantlings, therefore an allowable stress associated
with net scantlings was used, 175 / 0.9 = 194 but then rounded down to use an
allowable stress of 190 N/mm2 to be on the conservative side since there would be a
spread in the actual impact on the SM by deducting 0.5 of the corrosion allowance.
IV.
The following tables include results for representative tankers and bulk carriers for a
range of vessel sizes.
IACS Study: Impact of Applying CSR Corrosion Addition on the Hull Girder Section Modulus
3 June 2007
Page 3
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 7
PAGE 4
Tankers
Type
Tanker
Tanker
Tanker
Tanker
Tanker
Tanker
Tanker
Tanker
Tanker
Tanker
Tanker
Tanker
Tanker
Tanker
Tanker
Tanker
Tanker
Lbp
(m)
175.00
175.00
176.00
179.54
180.00
200.20
226.01
234.00
236.00
244.00
251.50
256.50
264.00
264.00
316.00
320.00
320.00
Breadth
(m)
32.00
40.00
32.20
32.20
27.40
32.20
42.00
42.00
42.00
46.00
42.50
42.50
48.00
48.00
60.00
58.00
70.00
Depth
(m)
17.95
17.90
17.20
18.30
16.80
17.35
21.30
21.00
21.00
22.20
21.00
22.40
23.70
24.00
29.70
31.00
25.60
Ave.
SM deck
reduction
(%)
13.1%
12.6%
12.1%
12.6%
13.8%
9.2%
9.7%
12.0%
11.6%
9.4%
10.6%
9.4%
11.4%
11.3%
11.0%
10.1%
9.2%
11.1%
SM btm
reduction
(%)
10.7%
10.9%
10.8%
10.1%
11.8%
9.8%
9.1%
10.5%
10.4%
9.5%
9.5%
9.0%
10.1%
9.6%
9.5%
8.7%
8.1%
9.9%
Tankers
16.0%
14.0%
SM Reduction (%)
12.0%
10.0%
SM deck (%)
8.0%
SM bottom (%)
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0%
150.00
200.00
250.00
300.00
350.00
LBP (m )
3 June 2007
Page 4
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 7
PAGE 5
Bulk Carriers
Type
Bulk Carrier
Bulk Carrier
Bulk Carrier
Bulk Carrier
Bulk Carrier
Bulk Carrier
Bulk Carrier
Bulk Carrier
Bulk Carrier
Bulk Carrier
Bulk Carrier
Bulk Carrier
Bulk Carrier
Bulk Carrier
Bulk Carrier
Bulk Carrier
Bulk Carrier
Lbp
(m)
163.60
170.00
182.00
183.25
185.00
215.86
217.00
220.00
222.00
222.00
222.00
222.00
260.00
278.00
280.00
281.50
288.00
Breadth
(m)
27.00
28.00
32.26
32.26
32.26
32.26
32.26
32.26
32.26
32.26
32.26
38.00
43.00
44.98
45.00
45.00
45.00
Depth
(m)
14.20
14.00
18.00
17.50
18.10
20.05
18.30
19.39
20.00
20.00
20.10
20.70
23.90
24.00
24.70
24.10
24.70
Ave.
SM deck
reduction
(%)
8.5%
9.3%
10.6%
9.0%
9.9%
11.6%
9.4%
11.0%
9.0%
10.1%
11.4%
10.0%
8.8%
8.3%
8.0%
7.1%
7.6%
9.4%
SM btm
reduction
(%)
10.7%
10.3%
10.8%
9.9%
10.0%
11.2%
10.6%
11.0%
10.1%
10.2%
11.6%
10.6%
9.5%
9.5%
9.9%
8.5%
8.9%
10.2%
Bulk Carriers
14.0%
SM Reduction (%)
12.0%
10.0%
8.0%
SM deck (%)
6.0%
SM bottom (%)
4.0%
2.0%
0.0%
150.00
200.00
250.00
300.00
350.00
LBP (m)
3 June 2007
Page 5
MSC 83/INF.5
ANNEX 7
PAGE 6
V.
Please note the following:
1) The percentages shown are the reduction of the section modulus deck and bottom
due to simultaneous reduction of 0.5 of the individual corrosion additions as
included in the CSR for tankers and bulk carriers, respectively. The percentage is
calculated as follows:
Percent = 100 x (SM gross SM net) / SM gross
2)
Uniformly deducting 0.5 of the corrosion addition from the longitudinal members
affects the global sectional properties in different and opposite ways for the two
ship types. For tankers it causes the neutral axis to be lower and for bulk carriers to
be higher, so the total effect (on the section modulus at deck) is a larger percentage
reduction for tankers because both the inertia and the height of the neutral axis are
reduced. Therefore, in general, the effect on bulk carriers will be less than on
tankers. This is inevitable given that the distribution of longitudinal material is
different for the two ship types.
2)
Bulk carriers have lesser deck width than tankers since the former have hatch
openings. Accordingly it is required to have greater thickness in deck plate of bulk
carriers than tankers. Further, sometimes the deck plate thickness is determined by
the hull girder bending moment in flooded condition for bulk carriers and there is
not a similar hull girder strength requirement in flooded condition for tankers.
Thus deck plate thickness is generally greater in bulk carriers compared with
tankers. Since the deck corrosion addition is mostly 4.0 mm both for bulk carriers
and tankers, therefore it may be natural that the percent reduction of section
modulus at deck is generally smaller for bulk carriers than for tankers.
3)
In general the gross offered bottom shell plate thickness of bulk carriers is similar
to or slightly smaller than that of tankers having similar vessel length. The
corrosion addition is mostly 3mm for both bulk carriers and tankers, therefore it
may be natural that the percent reduction of section modulus at bottom is generally
equal to or greater for bulk carriers than for tankers.
___________
3 June 2007
Page 6

83 Inf5

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

83 Inf5

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION

MARITIME SAFETY COMMITTEE

GOAL-BASED NEW SHIP CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS

This document forwards the IACS documents submitted to the Pilot

MSC 82/24, paragraph 5.29

Action requested of the Committee

IACS Documentation Package

IACS - International Association of Classification Societies

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Produced in February 2007 for the International Association of Classification Societies.

IMO Pilot Project

This page intentionally left blank

IMO Pilot Project

Structure of this report

IMO Pilot Project

Self Assessment Summary Table

Implicitly addressed in rules.

II.6.1 Coating life

II.10 Design transparency

Implicitly addressed in rules.

Partially covered. May be

II.11 Construction quality

II.13 Survey and

Addressed with respect to

IMO Pilot Project

Will be addressed in future IMO

Cross reference Table

TIER II (FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS)

CSR for Tanker

<from MSC 82/WP.5, 6 Dec 2006>

Associated Rule Reference

II.2 Environmental conditions

II.3 Structural strength

to withstand, at net scantlings**, in the

appropriate for all design parameters

The structural strength should be assessed against

2/3.1.3 Design life

TIER II (FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS)

CSR for Tanker

<from MSC 82/WP.5, 6 Dec 2006>

Associated Rule Reference

damage by loading/discharging equipment which may

8/Tab 8.2.10 (PSM)

** The net scantlings should provide the structural

II.4 Fatigue life

The design fatigue life should not be less than the

II.5 Residual strength

TIER II (FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS)

CSR for Tanker

<from MSC 82/WP.5, 6 Dec 2006>

Associated Rule Reference

withstand the wave and internal loads in specified

A/ which contains post-buckling

II.6 Protection against corrosion

(See details below in II.6.1 and 2)

Measures are to be applied to ensure that net

II.6.1 Coating life

II.6.2 Corrosion addition

The corrosion addition should be added to the net

II.7 Structural redundancy

Ships should be of redundant design and construction

TIER II (FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS)

CSR for Tanker